I'm A Creationist

[victor....@gmail.com]

Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

[Ron O]

On Jul 4, 2:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

Just a little advice.

Try to learn and not preach.

Ask what you really want to know and not what you think cannot be
answered.

Don't act like you know it all when you don't know what you are
talking about.

Expect to be ridiculed because anti-evolution creationists are just
about on par with flat-earthers, you just don't know that, yet.

If you are really here to learn something you will learn that last
part very well.

Do you know basic terrestrial vertebrate anatomy. Your question
indicates that you do not. You might ask about that first.

If you ask nicely, someone will answer nicely. There will be a lot
that will not answer nicely, but you are allowed to ignore them.

Ron Okimoto

[Boikat]

On Jul 4, 2:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

"I don't see how..." is a logical fallacy known as the argument from
ignorance or incredulity.

Boikat

[Kalkidas]

On 7/4/2012 12:11 PM, victor....@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

First learn to word wrap your outgoing posts.

Then at least the Darwinists can read what they're not going to give an
answer to.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 4, 1:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
pictures

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
words

...there may be a pop quiz.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:11:30 -0700 (PDT), victor....@gmail.com
wrote:

>Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

You really should get a good intro biology book to start answering
your questions.

For example, you talk about "a mammal with one pipe for breathing and
eating". The fact is that all terrestrial vertebrates have two
"pipes", one for eating called the esophagus and one for breathing
called the trachea. Whales have exactly the same thing. The only
changes that occurs over a long period of time is how these open to
the outside. The earliest vertebrates, early fish-like forms, took in
water through the mouth and extracted both food and oxygen from the
water. The lungs developed as branches from the gut and so the mouth
was a good way of getting both oxygen from air and food. The nose was
only for smell. At some point in evolution, a connection opened
between the nose (nasal passages) and the mouth (pharynx) allowing
nose breathing.

Embryonic whales have the blowhole (breathing opening) at the tip of
the rostrum (nose) and it gradually moves to the top of the head as
the embryo develops. It is all the same type of "plumbing".
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html

A good discussion in general about whale evolution is at

http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-theory-prediction-and-converging-lines-of-evidence
This should be very important for you because it was written from a
religious christian perspective, specifically by "a community of
evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the
compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by
the truth that “all things hold together in Christ.”

[Louann Miller]

victor....@gmail.com wrote in
news:41eefc0b-ada1-4ceb...@googlegroups.com:

> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come
> here and learn about evolution.

I'd recommend the book "Why Evolution is True," by Jerry Coyne, as a good
starting point. It's too big a subject to fold down into one book, but that
one's a reasonable approximation.

Also, check here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-welcome.html

If sarcasm is a worry, you may find this newsgroup a bit rugged to deal
with. As another poster noted, though, you are allowed to ignore the snippy
ones. Goodness knows we ignore plenty of you-are-going-to-hell posts from
our creationist subset. When you've gotten to know them, you'll probably
see why.

[Nashton]

I'm sure creationists are outraged because some Japanese evocheerleader
thinks we're about on par with flat Earthers.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <efae37a3-fe0d-4e57...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Slow Vehicle <oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
>pictures
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
>words

Neither of those links seems to work for me. The first one even
gives a "The file you're looking for doesn't exist" message from
the "Understanding Evolution" site, so I am getting through to
Berkeley.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 4, 3:47 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <efae37a3-fe0d-4e57-92bc-075005bf5...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

> Slow Vehicle  <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
> >pictures
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
> >words
>
> Neither of those links seems to work for me.  The first one even
> gives a "The file you're looking for doesn't exist" message from
> the "Understanding Evolution" site, so I am getting through to
> Berkeley.
>
> --
> Please reply to:         | "We establish no religion in this country, we
> pciszek at panix dot com |  command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
> Autoreply is disabled    |  will we ever.  Church and state are, and must
>                          |  remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

They seem to be working fine from here...try going to
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
then using "evogram" (without quotes) as a search term...you should
find a link to the evogram for whales.
Alternatively, you could just search for "evogram for whales" on your
favorite search engine, and you should find it.
Either way, the other site is more in-depth. It's just that the
Berkley site is beautiful.

Holler if you have any problems.

[Mockingbird]

I'm here because this type of evolution makes zero sense. If I get ridiculed I'm going to ridicule back. Fair is fair. Thanks for the heads up.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <d6390da5-5519-4942...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Slow Vehicle <oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
>> >pictures
>>
>> >http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
>> >words
>>
>> Neither of those links seems to work for me.  The first one even
>> gives a "The file you're looking for doesn't exist" message from
>> the "Understanding Evolution" site, so I am getting through to
>> Berkeley.
>

>They seem to be working fine from here...try going to
>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
>then using "evogram" (without quotes) as a search term...you should
>find a link to the evogram for whales.
>Alternatively, you could just search for "evogram for whales" on your
>favorite search engine, and you should find it.
>Either way, the other site is more in-depth. It's just that the
>Berkley site is beautiful.

Ah, the words "pictures" and "words" are not part of mangled URL's,
but commentary.

[Louann Miller]

Mockingbird <victor....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:48be2562-b079-4c95...@googlegroups.com:

> I'm here because this type of evolution makes zero sense.

Of course it makes zero sense. Because that's not the actual theory. You've
got -- you've purposely been given -- an incredibly distorted image of what
evolution actually is and does. If you want to learn what the theory
actually is, we can do that.

If on the other hand you want to nail your misunderstandings to the mast
and defend them to the death ... you'd have to work very hard to be the
silliest creationist here. (I'm guessing you don't think rocks have free
will, for example.)

[Mockingbird]

How do you word wrap on this forum?

[Ron O]

You will have to learn how to ask questions that can be answered
sensibly. You will have to get your background information right in
order to do that. Evolution may make no sense to you because you do
not seem to understand the biology that you are commenting about.

Ignorance isn't a bad thing unless you let it make you do stupid
things like NashTon above. Everyone is ignorant about something.
Everyone can just hope to learn something and become a little less
ignorant.

You may want to drop the moniker of Mockingbird if you want to be
taken seriously. You could be Student1 and just about make that a
first for a creationist. Most creationists do not come here to learn
anything. You will see that if you stick around for any reasonable
length of time.

Ron Okimoto

[Frank J]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:11:30 PM UTC-4, Mockingbird wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist

What "kind"?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

> and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution.

They probably told you to go to the TO *archive* not the TO *newsgroup*. If you really want to learn about evolution you will go there. But if you prefer to recycle long-refuted arguments that you have heard, this is the place.

I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

No. The chance that it would happen in less than 6 days is what's ridiculous. So much so that many (most?) self-described creationists no longer believe that. Do you?

And don't be fooled by the bait-and-switch between proximate and ultimate causes. A Creator could have done it in 6 days, or maybe created the whole universe 5 minutes ago. But the evidence says that He did it over ~4 billion years using a process called "evolution."

[Mockingbird]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:11:30 PM UTC-4, Mockingbird wrote:

> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

This forum is so buggy on my system. I just had 2 posts dissapere before i could send. I don't even know if this will post.
I can't work this way.

[Robert Camp]

Can you explain to me what Ron's ethnicity has to do with this?

RLC

[Robert Camp]

Your ideas about whales suggests that this may not work so well.
Ridicule can be informed or ignorant. Some (not all) will mock what
you have to say, but if you educate yourself before you "ridicule
back" you'll make it a lot harder for them.

RLC

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:48:30 -0400, Robert Camp wrote
(in article
<8aa61cf6-f310-4826...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):

oh, I can guess. And I'm sure that you can, too.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Kalkidas]

Your newsreader does the wrapping. For example, on Xnews it's in the
|Special|Setup Xnews| menu, in the Compose tab.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:26:57 -0400, Mockingbird wrote
(in article <c2089a11-813d-46ee...@googlegroups.com>):

You appear to be using Google Groups.

1 t.o is NOT a Google Group. It is a USENET newsgroup, which can be accessed
by Google Groups. The rules of USENET are not the same as the rules of Google
Groups. This means that there can be... problems. You need to set whatever
you use to read Google Groups so that you can easily read/write.

2 it might be better to use one of the many free or cheap USENET feeds. Free
ones include eternalseptember, aeiou, and a few others. Cheap ones include
the University of Berlin and the feed I use, Newsguy. You would then need a
real newsreader, such as Forte (Free) Agent for Windows or one of the
NewsWatchers for Mac.

3 in any case, you should know that all posts on this newsgroup go to a
machine at the University of Toronto, where they are processed by Darwin, the
bot. Darwin looks for certain things, notably for too many newsgroups. (if
you have more than four groups in the Newsgroups: line of your post, your
post will be rejected; if you have certain specific groups in your
Newsgroups: line, you will be restricted to cross-posting to those groups and
to t.o., _only_. If there are any additional groups, your post will be
rejected.) There are a number of other items, but the bot does not check for
content. If you manage to annoy the Keeper of the Bot, the Almighty DIG, you
can be banned. This has happened less than a half dozen times since, I think,
1997. Any post which has characters which the bot doesn't like may be
mangled. Using HTML or XML comes under the heading of A Really Bad Idea(tm).

4 There have been honest creationists here; the guy who was a student at an
engineering college on the UP of Michigan comes to mind. Unfortunately, the
majority are simply not honest, and a large subset of them are here to
preach. This tends to have... negative results. I, for example, went to
Church schools from elementary to university. I took biology in high school,
and had some other exposure in university. I find it most amusing when some
random creationist insists that all 'evolutionists' must be atheists, given
who taught high school biology, and certain subjects in university.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:11:30 -0400, victor....@gmail.com wrote
(in article <41eefc0b-ada1-4ceb...@googlegroups.com>):

> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and
> learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not.

Doubt it. This is where creationists come to feed the Howler Monkeys.

> I
> thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it
> clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant
> rat like creature to a Whale?

lots of small steps over a very, very, VERY long time.

> I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one
> pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and
> another one for eating.

Well, that's wrong right there. All mammals (all tetrapods other than fish,
and I think some fish, too) have _two_ 'pipes'.

> At what moment does the change happen, how can it
> happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form
> with one useless tube.

That's good, 'cause it didn't happen that way.

> It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance
> that it would happen over time seems ridicules.
>

Why?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:39:58 -0400, Mockingbird wrote
(in article <fb10964a-8678-4445...@googlegroups.com>):

It's not a 'forum'. It's a newsgroup. You really should get an account at a
real newsfeed, and a real newsreader.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:10:20 -0400, Mockingbird wrote
(in article <48be2562-b079-4c95...@googlegroups.com>):

oh, my. Time to get out the popcorn, I smell fresh meat for the Howlers...

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:59:18 -0400, Kalkidas wrote
(in article <jt2hsa$hh0$1...@dont-email.me>):

He's using Google Groups, possibly the worst possible newsfeed ever made.

[UC]

On Jul 4, 3:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

It amazes me that creationists cannot accept that organisms can change
quite extensively over millions of years, but have no trouble
accepting that tadpoles become frogs in a few weeks, or that
caterpillars can become butterflies in a brief time.

[Kalkidas]

Interesting. Other google postings get wrapped though.

It seems to me that google posts which are replies to other posts do get
wrapped, whereas new-thread posts sometimes don't.

I wonder what the poster is doing or not doing. I was thinking maybe he
wrote the post in Notepad or Wordpad or something and then pasted it
into the google message window, not realizing that notepad/wordpad will
not insert cr/lf if wordwrap is turned on and you don't ever hit return.
You can type and type and it seems like notepad is formatting everything
for you, but it's really just one long line.....

[Dexter]

"Mockingbird" <victor....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48be2562-b079-4c95...@googlegroups.com...

______________________________________________________

You'll also find that nymshifting is not welcome here.

Kindest Regards,

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 11:26:57 PM UTC+1, Mockingbird wrote:
> How do you word wrap on this forum?

If you're using "new Google Groups", that's
going to be tricky. You can switch to
"old Google Groups", or do it by hand.

This is actually a "Usenet" forum, a sort
of worldwide public e-mail, and Google is
only one of the interfaces into it.

As for the whales, I look at my own face in
the mirror and I see two breathing holes and
one eating hole, so where is the problem?

[chris thompson]

Well, let's start with a little bit of history here.

In this newsgroup, which has been around for a few decades, we (the
people who've been here a while) have seen a lot of drive-by posts. By
that, I mean people who come here and post a question or statement
about evolution without really wanting answers, but just want to
affirm their anti-evolution view. That's fine- that's why this group
is here.

But since we get so many of those, many of the regulars are seriously
jaded. When we (they) see a post like yours, the knee-jerk reaction is
to think that you posted once, had your fun, and won't come back to
see any substantive answers.

If that's not the case in your instance- if you really want to learn
what evolutionary theory says- I apologize for whatever jeers or
insults the regulars might have hurled your way.

But please- you have to narrow down your question.

Evolutionary biology is a pretty specific area of biology. There are
things we know and things we don't know. In the words of Donald
Rumsfeld, there's things we know, things we don't know, and things we
don't know that we don't know (and in fact, that's the antithesis of
Dunning-Kruger syndrome- best thing DR ever said).

So please, state your questions clearly, and we'll do our best to
answer it- if the answer is known.

Chris

[Paul J Gans]

Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 11:26:57 PM UTC+1, Mockingbird wrote:
>> How do you word wrap on this forum?

>If you're using "new Google Groups", that's
>going to be tricky. You can switch to
>"old Google Groups", or do it by hand.

I use an old fashioned newsreader. I try to keep my
lines short (because they are easier to read that way)
and I use short paragraphs mainly because solid blocks
of text don't read very easily on a computer screen.

For example, these lines are about 55 or so characters
long. I don't count them, I just eyeball them.

>This is actually a "Usenet" forum, a sort
>of worldwide public e-mail, and Google is
>only one of the interfaces into it.

>As for the whales, I look at my own face in
>the mirror and I see two breathing holes and
>one eating hole, so where is the problem?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Syamsu]

On Jul 4, 9:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

Keep on being a creationist. Freedom is real in the universe, things
could have turned out differently. Sophisticated ways of deciding take
place. DNA is excellently suited for being decided upon, due to it's
nature of alternates, CATG, which is very similar to computerbits
either 0 or 1.

Evolutionists generally don't even accept freedom is real, and what is
more awful, they generally don't allow subjectivity, expression of
emotion. Who you are as the owner of your choices is a matter of fact
which can be measured according to them, and not a matter of opinion
to be chosen.

Look at the universe, if you think decisions are made out there, if
you think freedom is real and things could have turned out
differently, and if you think that what made the decisions turn out
the way they did is a matter of opinion, then you are a creationist,
otherwise not.

[jillery]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:47:10 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <efae37a3-fe0d-4e57...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
>Slow Vehicle <oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
>>pictures
>>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
>>words
>
>Neither of those links seems to work for me. The first one even
>gives a "The file you're looking for doesn't exist" message from
>the "Understanding Evolution" site, so I am getting through to
>Berkeley.

Odd. They work for me.

[SkyEyes]

On Jul 4, 12:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

Hi! I was brought up a creationist; then I took some biology courses
and now I realize how evolution works.

The best advice I can give you is (1) take some logic courses so that
you learn not to use arguments from incredulity; and (2) take some
college biology courses so that you get a real idea about how
evolution works.

Unlike creationism, evolution is a complex science that can't be
condensed into sound bites. However, when you finally learn how it
works, and realize that you are a relative of every life form on the
planet, it's a real rush - and unlike religion, it's a rush that
*lasts*.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Mike Painter]

On 7/4/2012 5:52 PM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

All those holes join up not far back in your mouth. People often find
this out when young and they laugh at the wrong time with milk coming
out the nose. You can be fed through your nose.

Whales have separate holes for breathing and eating.

If you've ever "swallowed wrong" you know this is silly design.
If you've ever tried to save somebody who was drunk and inhaled a good
length of chicken you know it is stupid.
A half witted designer would have gotten rid of the flap and created
separate tubes.

[Karel]

On 5 jul, 02:52, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

About doing it by hand: I prefer to keep my lines
short anyway, so I just give a (hard) Return when
I think that is about as far as I want to go.

A bit boring, but it makes me feel nostalgic for
the typewriter aera and it works.

Regards,

Karel

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 8:11:30 PM UTC+1, Mockingbird wrote:

> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not.

probably not. If you want to learn about evolutionary biology this is a good place for it. I've learned a lot.

> I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale?

in small steps. Doesn't an air breathing aquatic mammal seem rather odd to you?

Could I ask you a few questions? If no evolution occurs where did all those different animals (and plants and so on) appear from? Were they created? And if so, when?

> I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating.

what mammal has only "a single pipe for breathing and eating"?

> At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen?

I could imagine a second hole appearing (consider hare lips and such like. Later they could form two separate passages. After that it's easy.

> I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube.

failure of imagination doesn't really cut it. The trick is to realise all the intermediate forms are all quite viable. A tube without a use won't form.

> It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

note evolutionary biology has enourmous amounts of time to operate in and sometimes operates surprisingly quickly.

It's difficult to summarise a complex and wide-ranging scientific theory in a short usenet post. Look for the talk.origins web site or read a popular book- Dawkins is quite good if stay away from his religious polemnic. try "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker" or even "The Greatest Show On Earth".

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

But if you think that that argument doesn't make sense,
you're not alone.

[walksalone]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in
news:jt2dku$rv1$1...@reader1.panix.com:

>
> In article
> <efae37a3-fe0d-4e57...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Slow Vehicle <oneslow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03_pictures>
>>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/>

>
> Neither of those links seems to work for me. The first one even
> gives a "The file you're looking for doesn't exist" message from
> the "Understanding Evolution" site, so I am getting through to
> Berkeley.

They may work now, word wrap gets all of us at least once. By using the <>
to enclose the web site, your reader thinks of it as a HTML tag, & usually
just goes there.

walksalone who has had more than his share of WTF moments. Heck, he has
even had to RTFM.

The man who is always waving the flag usually waives what it stands for.
-Laurence J. Peter, educator and author (1919-1990)

[Perseus]

On Jul 4, 8:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

Ok, before challenging Theory of Evolution, you first had to challenge
the concept, if you have any real proves that "magic" and
"supernatural events" occur in this planet.
I say the planet, for I am not sure if you had ever living in another
planet of the galaxy.

Then, if you confront the challenge of "does it exist the
supernatural" to start with... you have only to replies. Either the
supernatural exists, or it does not.

If you think that supernatural events exists, then it is better you do
not go farther, for you do not need to learn what shit is this, "the
theory of evolution".

Those of us that believe in Evolution are people that do not believe
in the supernatural. If you do not believe in the supernatural, you
start to think on various elements of nature, like those studied by
geology, or start to think about the various forms of animals, and
so. If you do not believe in the supernatural, sooner or later, you
would have to invent a theory similar to the theory of evolution.
That's all.

Then, before challenging us, Darwinists, with some shit you do not
understand, go to case number one, and ask yourself if really exists a
god, and who is the true one, for there is a lot of fake gods. Then,
if you start to check on the gods, and go discarding one by one,
saying, "this one is fake", "also this one is fake", and this and
this, and this... then, you probably conclude that all gods are fake.
This would not prove to you that gods does not exist, but any god
exists at all, it is not doing wonders, miracles, or supernatural
events. So, this is more or less equivalent to the concept that it
does not exists, for if a dog is not quacking like a god, there is not
a any god. A dog to be real have to show positive signs that exist;
that means a dog to be real, it must behave like a duck, it must quack
as all true gods quack. Does your god quacks, man?

Perseus

[Perseus]

On Jul 4, 11:10 pm, Mockingbird <victor.barne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:27:11 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> > On Jul 4, 2:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.
>

> > Just a little advice.
>
> > Try to learn and not preach.
>
> > Ask what you really want to know and not what you think cannot be
> > answered.
>
> > Don't act like you know it all when you don't know what you are
> > talking about.
>
> > Expect to be ridiculed because anti-evolution creationists are just
> > about on par with flat-earthers, you just don't know that, yet.
>
> > If you are really here to learn something you will learn that last
> > part very well.
>
> > Do you know basic terrestrial vertebrate anatomy.  Your question
> > indicates that you do not.  You might ask about that first.
>
> > If you ask nicely, someone will answer nicely.  There will be a lot
> > that will not answer nicely, but you are allowed to ignore them.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> I'm here because this type of evolution makes zero sense. If I get ridiculed I'm going to ridicule back. Fair is fair. Thanks for the heads up.

what do you mean? You mean theory of evolution looks nonsense to you?

Ok, the next question is... does supernatural wonders and miracles
look as something normal to you? Does it mean you live in a world
where the supernatural events are showering over your head on a daily
bases?

Perseus

[jillery]

Even if he could, he most likely won't. His complaints about people
running and evading are clearly projection.

[jillery]

ISTM there is no need to apologize for something that hasn't happened,
and tends to prime the pump by seeding anticipation.

[jillery]

What a useful tip, and much quicker than tinyurl. Thank you.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 5, 7:19 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:48:31 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> >nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in
> >news:jt2dku$rv1$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> >> In article

> >> <efae37a3-fe0d-4e57-92bc-075005bf5...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

But unfortunately, "pictures" isn't part of
the correct URL, it was a confusingly placed
description. I vote for "< >" around addresses -
but I don't trust "new Google Groups" and other
newsreaders to cooperate if the line is longer
than a normal line break. So I tend to leave
a double line break, no brackets:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/04/stay_on_galaxy_nexus_ban_denied/

Because on the other hand, a URL without brackets
is liable to be merged with other text on the
same line; spaces next to the URL are taken out.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 8:11:30 PM UTC+1, Mockingbird wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

Have we talked about their feet yet?

I was writing a comment about that earlier,
but my PC crashed. I don't remember whether
I re-wrote it. (Also snakes with feet...)

[jillery]

IIUC the trachea and esophagus connect in most tetrapods, and whales
are a distinct exception. ISTM it's a stretch to say they are one
tube, even if they originally evolved from one.

[Will in New Haven]

On Jul 4, 3:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

Please go to gettafukingeducationyoumoron.edu

--
Will in New Haven

[jillery]

I have noticed GG's concatenation also, and your double-line breaks is
an effective solution against it. I'm thinking brackets can't hurt,
and might help. Some experiments need to be run.

[John Stockwell]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 1:11:30 PM UTC-6, Mockingbird wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

So, your handle is "Mocking"-bird. Right off that is a tipoff that you
are not here to learn but basically to mock what you plainly do not understand.

The short answer to your question is
1) Arguments from personal incredulity don't mean anything at all
2) mutation and natural selection, reproductive isolation, and millions of years.

-John

[John Stockwell]

...it helps to be an uneducated idiot too.

[Nashton]

On 07-04-12 7:56 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:

>>>
>>>> Try to learn and not preach.
>>>
>>>> Ask what you really want to know and not what you think cannot be
>>>> answered.
>>>
>>>> Don't act like you know it all when you don't know what you are
>>>> talking about.
>>>
>>>> Expect to be ridiculed because anti-evolution creationists are just
>>>> about on par with flat-earthers, you just don't know that, yet.
>>>
>>>> If you are really here to learn something you will learn that last
>>>> part very well.
>>>
>>>> Do you know basic terrestrial vertebrate anatomy. Your question
>>>> indicates that you do not. You might ask about that first.
>>>
>>>> If you ask nicely, someone will answer nicely. There will be a lot
>>>> that will not answer nicely, but you are allowed to ignore them.
>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>

>>> I'm sure creationists are outraged because some Japanese evocheerleader
>>> thinks we're about on par with flat Earthers.
>>
>> Can you explain to me what Ron's ethnicity has to do with this?
>>

>> RLC
>>
>
> oh, I can guess. And I'm sure that you can, too.
>

Inconsequential, as usual.

[Nashton]

On 07-04-12 7:48 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2:33 pm, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:

>> On 07-04-12 4:27 PM, Ron O wrote:

It has nothing to do with anything, at all.

Should it?

Why did I mention it? Because it's true, perhaps?

[Ray Martinez]

On Jul 4, 12:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.

What other choice does the Atheist have, Victor?

Ray

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 13:29:41 -0400, Nashton wrote
(in article <jt4iu1$hft$3...@speranza.aioe.org>):

Yes, you are.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:37:36 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 7/4/2012 12:11 PM, victor....@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.
>

>First learn to word wrap your outgoing posts.
>
>Then at least the Darwinists can read what they're not going to give an
>answer to.

Yes, those non-answers total around 50 so far, and that's
just in one day. And your spurious concern regarding the
abilities of others to parse long lines is endearing but
misplaced, as it should have been addressed to those who
complain the most frequently about it.

Oh, wait; that's you. Never mind; no need to talk to
yourself any more than usual.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Robert Camp]

Well, one would expect it would, or should we assume that the rest of
your words have "nothing to do with anything, at all" as well? I
imagine you, at least, must have thought they were of some
consequence, regardless of whether anyone else here finds anything
useful in them.

> Why did I mention it? Because it's true, perhaps?

That makes sense, I suppose, if we ignore your omission of scads of
other inconsequential ("nothing to do with anything") truths. You
know, like he's human, he's male, he eats, sleeps and goes to
work...well, I think you get the point.

Was there something about the ethnicity thing - I mean besides the
fact that it has "nothing to do with anything" of course - that
prompted your allusion?

RLC

[Paul J Gans]

Humans did have separate tubes until Adam listened to his wife.
After that the kindly and benificent God has punished humankind
forever by magically joining the two tubes.

Lesson: never listen to your wife. The Bible tells us that.

---
--- Paul J. Gans

[Dana Tweedy]

Whatever choices atheists have is irrelevant, as science and atheism are
separate things. Atheists accept evolution for the same reason
Christians and other religionists accept evolution; it's the best
scientific explanation for the evidence.

DJT

[Frank J]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 10:22:05 PM UTC-4, Syamsu wrote:

> On Jul 4, 9:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.
>

> Keep on being a creationist.

Should he be a Muslim too, or is that optional for you?

[chris thompson]

You're right. This time, I jumped the gun and apologized when no one
had lambasted the OP. I plead too much past experience.

Chris

[Frank J]

The way he/she spelled "ridicurous" is also a tipoff that he/she sees himself/herself as a "SvenJolly." (that's 2 Seinfeld references in case anyone is scratching their heads).

But there's always a rare chance (about 0.1% in my experience) that it's someone who really wants to learn and have his/her misconceptions straightened out. Which I why wait a while before concluding.

[chris thompson]

On Jul 4, 7:26 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:59:18 -0400, Kalkidas wrote
> (in article <jt2hsa$hh...@dont-email.me>):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/4/2012 3:26 PM, Mockingbird wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:37:36 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:

> >>> On 7/4/2012 12:11 PM, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here
> >>>> and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or
> >>>> not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I
> >>>> should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we
> >>>> get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible
> >>>> for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one
> >>>> pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the
> >>>> change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't
> >>>> envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like
> >>>> all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time
> >>>> seems ridicules.
>

> >>> First learn to word wrap your outgoing posts.
>
> >>> Then at least the Darwinists can read what they're not going to give an
> >>> answer to.
>

> > Your newsreader does the wrapping. For example, on Xnews it's in the
> >> Special|Setup Xnews| menu, in the Compose tab.
>
> He's using Google Groups, possibly the worst possible newsfeed ever made.

>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

If he's using the "new and improved" Gurgle Gropes, I cannot say
anything. But the old and barely utilitarian GG wrapped text just
fine- about the only thing it did right.

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Jul 5, 10:25 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:36:15 -0700, Mike Painter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On 7/4/2012 5:52 PM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

Nope. The trachea and esophagus never really connect. Obviously, they
both open up in the oral cavity, but they're never connected- at no
point do they form a single structure.

Also, they did not evolve from a single structure. While they both
arise from embryological endoderm, they are completely distinct. I am
sure Richard Norman can provide more and better information than I
can.

Help, Richard?

Thanks

Chris

[Louann Miller]

Frank J <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:e66c5859-4d27-4c37...@googlegroups.com:

> But there's always a rare chance (about 0.1% in my experience) that
> it's someone who really wants to learn and have his/her misconceptions
> straightened out. Which I why wait a while before concluding.

He seems to have buggered off.

[chris thompson]

On Jul 5, 4:04 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On 7/4/2012 5:52 PM, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

That IS the route to Hell, Paul. At least, it's the route to Living
Hell. When I ignore She Who Must Be Obeyed, my life becomes Living
Hell.

Maybe after I die, that other Hell won't be so bad. In some ways, I am
looking forward to it.

Chris

[timoth...@gmail.com]

I can make a conscious choice not to be one of the following:

- mental traffic bollard
- oxygen thief
- liar for my religion
- honest but mistaken creationist
- flaming galah

Based on the evidence available, I choose to regard evolutionary biology as the best available explanation.

[Richard Norman]

You are almost correct here. The mammalian (and human) trachea
develops as a branch from the esophagus although once it branches it
remains an entirely different structure. Especially in mammals with
negative pressure breathing, the esophagus and trachea have very
different structure. However there is a birth defect, not all that
rare, in which there remains a connection between the esophagus and
trachea. It must be corrected surgically.

I already suggested points along this line including a link to how the
blowhole in whales migrates from what would normally be the nose area
to the top of the head.

There are a number of people here, you and me included, who have given
serious answers about whale evolution rather than abuse but, as we
really expected all along, the original poster hasn't responded.

[Frank J]

Maybe it was the mocking, mocking, mocking. I must be very bad, very very bad. ;-)

[Ray Martinez]

Since no God exists to cause anything to exist the Atheist has no
choice but to accept the concept of evolution (species produce
species) to explain the existence of species.

The only real issue, is: Why can't the Atheist admit? On one occasion
I made these points to PZ Myers. His response was extremely profane----
to profane and shocking for me to repeat in public. In short, he
became unglued in uncontrollable anger.

Ray

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Non sequitur noted.

[Paul J Gans]

Fear not. I have it on good authority that Hell has moved to
Washington DC. There is some argument as to who there plays
which role, but the conclusion seems unmistakable.

Avoid Hell, just don't run for national office.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Dana Tweedy]

On 7/5/12 4:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2:37 pm, timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, July 6, 2012 3:43:23 AM UTC+10, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Jul 4, 12:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.
>>
>>> What other choice does the Atheist have, Victor?
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> I can make a conscious choice not to be one of the following:
>>
>> - mental traffic bollard
>> - oxygen thief
>> - liar for my religion
>> - honest but mistaken creationist
>> - flaming galah
>>
>> Based on the evidence available, I choose to regard evolutionary biology as the best available> explanation.
>
> Since no God exists to cause anything to exist the Atheist has no
> choice but to accept the concept of evolution (species produce
> species) to explain the existence of species.

Except that evolution isn't the only possible explanation for the
diversity of life, or "the existence of species". It is, however the
only one that enjoys the massive amount of evidence that supports the
idea.

"God" is not an explanation for species any more than "magic" is an
explanation for how one can pull a rabbit out of a hat. Even those who
believe in God must have some idea of what mechanism produced species.

>
> The only real issue, is: Why can't the Atheist admit?

Why should they? They have other options. In any case, why would it
matter? Atheists don't control science, and many people of all
religions accept evolution due to it's scientific veracity.

> On one occasion
> I made these points to PZ Myers. His response was extremely profane----
> to profane and shocking for me to repeat in public. In short, he
> became unglued in uncontrollable anger.

I find that hard to believe, Ray. You've made the same kind of
accusation about me, when I expressed no anger at all. You seem to
project your own lack of control onto other people.


Also, you are being hypocritical about Myers using "profane"
language, when you, yourself use such language often, and for little
reason.

DJT

[Paul J Gans]

Of course, which gives the pungents a chance to move in.

[timoth...@gmail.com]

1. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to be an atheist to accept evolutionary biology.

Evidence: Ken Miller

2. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to be an theist to accept creationism.

Evidence: James Barham

[Slow Vehicle]

Ray, you never told me what you would accept as "evidence" or a
"demonstration", of natural selection, in the other thread...

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jul 5, 5:20 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Is there a Howler Monkey Tshirt?

[John Harshman]

James Barham?

[Mujin]

Why yes, yes there is:
http://www.zazzle.co.jp/%E3%83%9B%E3%82%A8%E3%82%B6%E3%83%AB%E3%81%AEt%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%84-235972963320533833

(I remain amazed at what can be found on google with combinations of
words that I would ordinarily not think to put together - not nostalgic
for gopher whatsoever)

--

Mujin

煩 惱 無 盡 誓 願 斷 bon no mu jin sei gan dan
法 門 無 量 誓 願 學 ho mon mu ryo sei gan gaku

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Token atheist on UD. Appears to be IDist.

[Ray Martinez]

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
sufferer but as a fighter."

--Adolf Hitler (1922)

As anyone can see, anyone can claim to be a Christian, Timmy.

Ray

[....]

[Mark Buchanan]

What evidence do you have that your definition is right?

Mark

[jillery]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:29:02 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:

>On 07-04-12 7:48 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 2:33 pm, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:

>>> On 07-04-12 4:27 PM, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 4, 2:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Try to learn and not preach.
>>>
>>>> Ask what you really want to know and not what you think cannot be
>>>> answered.
>>>
>>>> Don't act like you know it all when you don't know what you are
>>>> talking about.
>>>
>>>> Expect to be ridiculed because anti-evolution creationists are just
>>>> about on par with flat-earthers, you just don't know that, yet.
>>>
>>>> If you are really here to learn something you will learn that last
>>>> part very well.
>>>
>>>> Do you know basic terrestrial vertebrate anatomy. Your question
>>>> indicates that you do not. You might ask about that first.
>>>
>>>> If you ask nicely, someone will answer nicely. There will be a lot
>>>> that will not answer nicely, but you are allowed to ignore them.
>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>

>>> I'm sure creationists are outraged because some Japanese evocheerleader
>>> thinks we're about on par with flat Earthers.
>>
>> Can you explain to me what Ron's ethnicity has to do with this?
>>
>> RLC
>>
>
>It has nothing to do with anything, at all.
>
>Should it?
>
>Why did I mention it? Because it's true, perhaps?


There is a virtually unlimited supply of thing you could mention. You
mentioned that one specifically. Unless it's your goal to mention
nothing but irrelevancies. That does explain your posts.

[John Harshman]

I'll admit I don't see how this is possible, unless he's an advocate for
aliens. But if so, where does he get the aliens?

[jillery]

Of course, shortly after I posted, the belated lambasters woke up and
did their job, so I'm willing to regard you point as predictive rather
than presumptive.

[jillery]

By 'connect' I meant they share a junction where things can go down
the wrong way. If you object to the term, feel free to substitute
your own. I think my point remains valid either way.

>Also, they did not evolve from a single structure. While they both
>arise from embryological endoderm, they are completely distinct.

IIUC we are modified worms.

> am
>sure Richard Norman can provide more and better information than I
>can.
>
>Help, Richard?

Richard hasn't been especially helpful in explaining things to me.

[Mujin]

On 2012/07/06 11:48, jillery wrote:

<snip>

>
> IIUC we are modified worms.
>

Sadly TO is but one more data point in the evidence that some of us are
more modified than others.

[Mike Painter]

It is a direct quote from the man himself.

On the 18th of December, 1926, Hitler told a group devoted followers:
"Christ has laid forth the foundations for the war against the Jews,
hence the enemy of all mankind. The war Christ began I shall finish."

The RCC apparently believes he was a Christian.

"As a child Hitler attended Mass every day with his mother. He continued
tithing to the church annually until the very end. Further more, after
he committed suicide the Catholic church held a solemn requiem mass for
Hitler as a true son of the church. This mass was held on the 6th of
May, 1945. It was not obligatory for the church to hold. It was provided
despite the fact the Pope, who personally approved of the event, was by
then fully aware of the holocaust. This was a mass, which was an
honorary mass held for Hitler, at a time when the Nazis had already been
defeated and was not done out of fear."

Hitler continued the work of Martin Luther who's work "On the Jews." he
was probably familiar with.

And to make things clear, I believe that anybody who says they are a
Christian is one. I will change this view when there is one single
definition that all True Christians agree with.

Meanwhile I will wait for Godot.

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Second non sequitur noted.

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Seems to be a proponent of "too complicated for natural causes, therefore . . . . dum dee dum . . ." (twiddle thumbs, frown and look knowingly off into the distance, talk sceptically and repeat)

[Anthony Puccetti]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 2:20:25 PM UTC-5, Boikat wrote:

> On Jul 4, 2:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.
>

> "I don't see how..." is a logical fallacy known as the argument from
> ignorance or incredulity.
>
> Boikat

Arguments from incredulity are not necessarily fallacious. They often express honest disbelief. Many of the so-called logical fallacies have nothing to do with falsehood. They are just common ways of speaking that academic logicians disapprove of because of their form. And if arguments from incredulity are not to be accepted,then scientists are not justified in rejecting all supernatural causation. Francis Bacon and the early modern scientists never gave logical arguments against the scholastic philosophers' ideas about supernatural causation in the natural world. They just dismissed it out of their disbelief.

[Bob Berger]

In article <I4SdnbCbHvm...@giganews.com>, John Harshman says...

Walmart?

[jillery]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:45:20 +0900, Mujin <bodwy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2012/07/06 11:48, jillery wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> IIUC we are modified worms.
>>
>
>Sadly TO is but one more data point in the evidence that some of us are
>more modified than others.

True dat.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 10:20:21 AM UTC+1, Perseus wrote:

> On Jul 4, 8:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come
> > here and learn about evolution.

<snip>

I'm not sure the "you believe in superstitious twaddle whilst we rational atheists believe in evolution" argument is a good one. For a start you're siding with Ray...

> Ok, before challenging Theory of Evolution, you first had to challenge
> the concept, if you have any real proves that "magic" and
> "supernatural events" occur in this planet.

they could have occurred in the past but no longer do so. Not all religious people acknowledge that what god does *is* supernatural.

<snip>

> Then, if you confront the challenge of "does it exist the
> supernatural" to start with... you have only to replies. Either the
> supernatural exists, or it does not.

a bit simplistic. they may believe in some types of "supernatural" and not others.

> If you think that supernatural events exists, then it is better you do
> not go farther, for you do not need to learn what <expletive> is this,
> "the theory of evolution".

this sounds like an excuse not to have a discussion at all. (which may be a rational thing to do with hard core creationist)

> Those of us that believe in Evolution are people that do not believe
> in the supernatural.

I don't think this is necessarily so. Many religious people, whom you classify as "believers in superstition, also accept evolution as a fact.

I object to the word "believe" in this context. A religious person might be left with the idea that acceptance of evolution is a personnal conscience thing. *You* may even belive this. I don't. I don't have "beliefs" i have "reasonable expectations based on observation". I accept evolution as the best available explanation for the observed diversity of life. Because of the *evidence*.

> If you do not believe in the supernatural, you
> start to think on various elements of nature, like those studied by
> geology, or start to think about the various forms of animals, and
> so. If you do not believe in the supernatural, sooner or later, you
> would have to invent a theory similar to the theory of evolution.
> That's all.
>
> Then, before challenging us, Darwinists, with some <expletive> you do not
> understand, go to case number one, and ask yourself if really exists a
> god, and who is the true one, for there is a lot of fake gods. Then,
> if you start to check on the gods, and go discarding one by one,
> saying, "this one is fake", "also this one is fake", and this and
> this, and this... then, you probably conclude that all gods are fake.

I can think of several billion counter examples. Most people do not
follow your logic. Just because you can imagine a lot of false cases doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

"Is sqrt(2) is not equal to 1"
"Is sqrt(2) is not equal to 2"
...
"Is sqrt(2) is not equal to indefinitly large number"

therefore there is no sqrt(2)!

> This would not prove to you that gods does not exist, but any god
> exists at all, it is not doing wonders, miracles, or supernatural
> events. So, this is more or less equivalent to the concept that it
> does not exists, for if a dog is not quacking like a god, there is not
> a any god. A dog to be real have to show positive signs that exist;
> that means a dog to be real, it must behave like a duck, it must quack
> as all true gods quack. Does your god quacks, man?

astonishingly naive and poorly argued

[Ernest Major]

In message <ae14f299-5fd6-497f...@googlegroups.com>,
Anthony Puccetti <anthon...@ameritech.net> writes

>On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 2:20:25 PM UTC-5, Boikat wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 2:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come
>> >here and learn about evolution. I don't know if they were being
>> >sarcastic or not. I thought rather than trying to jump in the middle
>> >of a post I should keep it clean and start a new one. My main
>> >question is, how do we get from a giant rat like creature to a
>> >Whale? I don't think it possible for a Mammal with one pipe for
>> >breathing and eating to separate into one pipe for breathing and
>> >another one for eating. At what moment does the change happen, how
>> >can it happen and what makes it happen? I can't envision an
>> >intermediary life form with one useless tube. It seems like all or
>> >nothing to me. Also, the chance that it would happen over time seems ridicules.
>>
>> "I don't see how..." is a logical fallacy known as the argument from
>> ignorance or incredulity.
>>
>> Boikat
>
>Arguments from incredulity are not necessarily fallacious. They often
>express honest disbelief.

That the disbelief is honest doesn't make an argument from incredulity
any less fallacious.

>Many of the so-called logical fallacies have nothing to do with
>falsehood.

The problem with fallacies is not that the conclusions are false
(although they are commonly are); the problem is that the conclusions
don't follow from the arguments.

>They are just common ways of speaking that academic logicians
>disapprove of because of their form. And if arguments from incredulity
>are not to be accepted,then scientists are not justified in rejecting
>all supernatural causation.

That is a fallacious argument, in that it has an implicit premise - that
arguments from incredulity are the only reason for rejecting all
supernatural causation - which is false.

> Francis Bacon and the early modern scientists never gave logical
>arguments against the scholastic philosophers' ideas about supernatural
>causation in the natural world. They just dismissed it out of their
>disbelief.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Frank J]

Whether or not intentional on their part, that distracts critics into obsessing over "who's the designer?" and lets ID peddler off the hook of answering the crucial "what happened when" questions that could conceivably support their "theory" as well as their claim that ID is not "creationism."

Since you mention Miller, FWIW, ID peddlers, given their 8 years of raving about Antony Flew, etc., are more friendly to a hands-off "Deist" God than Miller (that evil "Darwinist") is.

As you probably know ID is a "big tent" scam that is hell-bent on keeping peace among YECs, OECs, geocentrists, non-Biblical literalist "pseudoskeptics" (claim to doubt evolution and creationism but whine exclusively about the former).

I say don't let them. Ignore the designer's identity and whether ID "is" creationism, and ask them the hard questions. Starting with whether they agree with Behe that life on Earth is ~4 billion years old and that humans share common ancestors with dogs and dogwoods.

[Frank J]

His dictionary, of course. It even overrules the Bible you know. ;-)

[Nashton]

On 12-07-04 4:27 PM, Ron O wrote:

> On Jul 4, 2:11 pm, victor.barne...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi, I'm a creationist and I was told by some evolutionists to come here and learn about evolution.

> Just a little advice.
>
> Try to learn and not preach.
>
> Ask what you really want to know and not what you think cannot be
> answered.

Bwahhahha!

Good thing I was able to get my keyboard out of the way of the coffee
that was ejected from my mouth!