Touching photo
chris thompson
Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
this should eliminate them.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009?image=2
Chris
J. J. Lodder
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> this should eliminate them.
>
>
> Chris
They seem smarter then the average evolutionist, eh?
All-seeing-I
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> > Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> > this should eliminate them.
>
>
> I've seen sheep do just the same,
>
> Jan
Elephants too
When a coyote killed the chickens, every day for almost a week my dogs
would go to their coop and just sit there for 10 minuets or so. As if
they were visiting the scene of a crime.
wf3h
guess creatinists think einstein was pretty dumb...ironic given
creationism's 2000 year history of failure
chris thompson
Do you think they were just hoping the coyote would come back?
Chris
Matt Silberstein
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> in
<59317825-8685-4d23...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
At least you have stopped pretending to be Christian in any meaningful
way.
--
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"
Devils Advocaat
Ah, but these minuets of which you speak, were they played with or
without dancers?
T Pagano
...but who ever questioned their mental capacity? It is not their
mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
gradualistic transformism from one population to another as prescribed
by neodarwinism.
Atheists are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
reproduction. NOT ONE SHRED OF DIRECT EVIDENCE. I have repeatedly
asked for scientific reports disputing this. Not one report has been
produced---NOT ONE. Perhaps Thompson would care to produce one?
There is no scientific evidence connecting the origin of man to chimp.
There is no fossil evidence and there is no mechanism which can be
employed to test the claim. The only thing connecting the two is an
atheistic metaphysical axiom that similarity is proof of lineal
connection. Please produce the scientific report establishing that
this is more than atheistic metaphysicsy?
BTW whatever happened to them bat cheek teeth?
Regards,
T Pagano
So far Elsberry and Forrest were completely embarrassed and
discredited when they produced scientific reports. Elsberry
practically vanished from the forum after I discredited him. Forrest
is still punch drunk.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Tony, you have a fascinating imagination.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
> >You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> >Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> >this should eliminate them.
>
>
> >Chris
>
> ...but who ever questioned their mental capacity?
Creationists do.
> It is not their
> mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
> recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
> discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
> gradualistic transformism from one population to another as prescribed
> by neodarwinism.
FALSEHOOD #1
The fossil record is full of the transitional forms predicted by
evolutionary theory.
>
> Atheists
FALSEHOOD #2.
Tony, you really should stop repeating this particular falsehood. Your
criteria make the Pope an atheist. Or are you going to stick with your
explanation that he is a liar?
> are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
> that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
> mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
> reproduction.
FALSEHOOD #3
As there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of scientific papers
which describe this in nature and in the laboratory, one can only
wonder who you think that you are fooling with such bald-faced lies.
> NOT ONE SHRED OF DIRECT EVIDENCE.
FALSEHOOD #4
No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it will not become truth.
> I have repeatedly
> asked for scientific reports disputing this.
FALSEHOOD #5
No, you haven't.
> Not one report has been
> produced---NOT ONE.
FALSEHOOD #6
They have, but you have either ignored them or lied about them.
> Perhaps Thompson would care to produce one?
>
> There is no scientific evidence connecting the origin of man to chimp.
FALSEHOOD #7
Actually, there is. The evidence is there in our DNA, and in the
fossil record. Lying about the evidence only makes you a liar. It
doesn't make the evidence go away.
> There is no fossil evidence
FALSEHOOD #8
What about the fossil record of early hominims?
> and there is no mechanism which can be
> employed to test the claim.
FALSEHOOD #9
Of course there is! It's called the scientific method.
> The only thing connecting the two is an
> atheistic metaphysical axiom that similarity is proof of lineal
> connection.
FALSEHOOD #10
How many times does it have to be explained to you that science
doesn't offer proof? Science offers testable explanations for
phenomena which can be observed and measured. All scientific
explanations are subject to revision or rejaction if that is what the
evidence demands. Scientific explanations are *not* revised or
rejected because they are in conflict with the religiously motivated
dogma of a bunch of liars who ignore the evidence.
> Please produce the scientific report establishing that
> this is more than atheistic metaphysicsy?
>
> BTW whatever happened to them bat cheek teeth?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> So far Elsberry and Forrest were completely embarrassed and
> discredited when they produced scientific reports.
Only in your fantasy world, Tony.
> Elsberry
> practically vanished from the forum after I discredited him. Forrest
> is still punch drunk.
You mean after I have listed 34 outright falsehoods in your past two
posts, Tony?
Do you honestly think that anyone is taken in by such a blatant lie?
RF
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> this should eliminate them.
>
>
> Chris
You have eliminated all doubts that you are a moron like the morons at
Nat Geo.
Ray
Devils Advocaat
Hey Ray, when are you going to explain how hydrated aluminium
silicates can become new species of living organisms?
RAM
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
> >You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> >Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> >this should eliminate them.
>
Your distortions are getting worse. Is this a cry for attention? How
about using actual specific scientific empirical evidence of primate
relatedness for your argument rather than empty sophomoric
bloviations. Take a scientific research article that demonstrates
primate relatedness and show us where, why and how it is wrong. Your
argument above (as badly and incorrectly stated at it is) is based
upon a comprehensive understanding of both the fossil record and
biological evidence of primates. You have never shown any ability to
take a scientific empirical article apart on anything much less
empirical data on primate relatedness. Your assertions above require
you to just that. I think you are a kook who thinks he has to testify
as a result of his weak religious faith in order to keep up his own
facade of creationism is good and any science that contradicts it is
bad. Since your time in posting to TO more and more fossil and
biological evidence has emerged on primate relatedness. All your
empty distortions will have minimal or not effect on TO lurkers until
you get more scientifically substantive.
And your Black Knight ploy is silly and old hat. Try evolving.
Steven L.
More likely they were hoping to get some free chicken meat to eat.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>> this should eliminate them.
>>
>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009?image=2
>>
>> Chris
>
>
> ...but who ever questioned their mental capacity? It is not their
> mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
> recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
> discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
> gradualistic transformism from one population to another as prescribed
> by neodarwinism.
>
> Atheists are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
> that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
> mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
> reproduction. NOT ONE SHRED OF DIRECT EVIDENCE.
What do you consider to be "direct evidence"???
The whole idea behind the ToE is it can take dozens, maybe hundreds, of
generations for a beneficial mutation to spread in a population. A new
species just doesn't pop into being in just one or two generations. We
have just such evidence for bacteria, which produce a new generation
every twenty minutes or so. They have evolved dramatically new traits
after a few dozen or a few hundred generations, which take only weeks in
a laboratory to evolve. That really has happened.
But for an animal that produces a new generation every few years, we
would have to watch that population for a century or longer--maybe
several centuries--before a new species would evolve.
You sound like a child standing before an analog clock, asking why the
hour hand doesn't move. Of course it moves--but are you going to stand
there for at least a half hour to see it?
> There is no scientific evidence connecting the origin of man to chimp.
> There is no fossil evidence and there is no mechanism which can be
> employed to test the claim. The only thing connecting the two is an
> atheistic metaphysical axiom that similarity is proof of lineal
> connection. Please produce the scientific report establishing that
> this is more than atheistic metaphysicsy?
Prior to DNA testing,
similarity was the ONLY way we had to establish paternity.
If a brunette woman from a whole line of brunette family members gave
birth to a blonde, her brunette husband would be mighty suspicious.
Alternatively, he might suspect the kid was adopted, or got switched at
birth somehow.
There were paternity suits on that basis.
Now was that just "atheistic metaphysics"?
Steven L.
> On Oct 31, 4:47 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>>
>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>>> this should eliminate them.
>>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>>> Chris
>> ...but who ever questioned their mental capacity?
>
> Creationists do.
>
>> It is not their
>> mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
>> recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
>> discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
>> gradualistic transformism from one population to another as prescribed
>> by neodarwinism.
>
> FALSEHOOD #1
> The fossil record is full of the transitional forms predicted by
> evolutionary theory.
He doesn't consider that "direct evidence."
When creationists speak of "direct evidence," they mean eyewitnesses,
video tapes, actual visual demonstrations of one species evolving into
another.
And that's the problem. We can do that with bacteria.
But we cannot have direct evidence of the emergence of Man, since that
happened 5 million years ago, and Australopithecus wasn't walking around
with video cameras recording his lifestyle.
wf3h
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> >
> mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
> recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
> discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
> gradualistic transformism from one population to another as prescribed
> by neodarwinism.
which, of course, is wrong. the fossil record is replete with evidence
of descent with modification. we have, for example, bountiful evidence
of speciation of diatoms over millions of years in the carribbean...
pagano, of course, having just been released from prison, is unaware
of this. (he lies; i lie)
>
> Atheists are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
> that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
> mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
> reproduction. NOT ONE SHRED OF DIRECT EVIDENCE.
hmmm...i guess he's unaware of diatoms. no surprise. creationists are
generally unaware of the natural world, spending time, instead, on
the gossip that they call 'theology'.
I have repeatedly
> asked for scientific reports disputing this. Not one report has been
> produced---NOT ONE. Perhaps Thompson would care to produce one?
november, 2001 issue of 'nature' has a detailed summary regarding the
evolution of diatoms.
and evidence of creationism? has it ever been seen? is there a
testable mechanism? a lab study?
i have repeatedly asked for creaetionist reports supporting this.not
one report has been produced. NOT ONE. perhaps pagano would care to
produce one.
>
> There is no scientific evidence connecting the origin of man to chimp.
you mean other than genetics, anatomy and fossil evidence? yes, i
suppose if you're a creationist, you just toss out the evidence 'cuz
'god did it' is what you believe
> There is no fossil evidence and there is no mechanism which can be
> employed to test the claim.
i suggest pagano study the recent work of the michigan state u.
biologist who's been working with e. coli in his lab. he's tested
descent with modification via differential reproduction.
pagano, again, ignores the evidence. he keeps saying it doesnt exist.
i just gave him 2 references that shows it does
and in 2000 years, where is there a SINGLE piece of evidence for
creationism? hell, i gave him more references for evolution than all
of creationists have produced in the entire history of their sorry
idea.
creationism is a failure.
heekster
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>>Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>>this should eliminate them.
>>
>>http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009?image=2
>>
>>Chris
>
>
>...but who ever questioned their mental capacity? It is not their
>mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
>recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
>discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
>gradualistic transformism from one population to another as prescribed
>by neodarwinism.
>
So, Tony, post your special dispensation from the pope, where he says
you are relieved of your responsibility to obey the ninth commandment,
as laid down in Exodus 20:16.
While you're at it, show us how the pope's ecclesiastical rank is
higher than that of YHWH.
>Atheists are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
>that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
>mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
>reproduction. NOT ONE SHRED OF DIRECT EVIDENCE. I have repeatedly
>asked for scientific reports disputing this. Not one report has been
>produced---NOT ONE. Perhaps Thompson would care to produce one?
>
Perhaps you would care to actually read for comprehension what you've
already been shown, countless times before?
>There is no scientific evidence connecting the origin of man to chimp.
Yes there is. And you've been corrected on this, before.
>There is no fossil evidence and there is no mechanism which can be
>employed to test the claim.
Still haven't heard about the genome, eh?
> The only thing connecting the two is an
>atheistic metaphysical axiom that similarity is proof of lineal
>connection.
Aw, Tony, are you truly this benighted?
>Please produce the scientific report establishing that
>this is more than atheistic metaphysicsy?
>
>BTW whatever happened to them bat cheek teeth?
>
Well, they came out, and were put under thye bat-pillow, and the
bat-tooth fairy came and took the bat cheek teeth, and left bat-money
for them, under the pillow.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>So far Elsberry and Forrest were completely embarrassed and
>discredited when they produced scientific reports. Elsberry
>practically vanished from the forum after I discredited him. Forrest
>is still punch drunk.
>
You are one seriously deluded, sad little monkey, if you actually
believe this.
Nashton
Which one are you in the photo?
Nashton
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:22:23 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> in
> <59317825-8685-4d23...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 6:11 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>>> this should eliminate them.
>>>
>>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>>>
>>> Chris
>> They seem smarter then the average evolutionist, eh?
>
> At least you have stopped pretending to be Christian in any meaningful
> way.
>
Just because we think you're mentally depraved and pretty darn stupid,
doesn't mean we don't love you with the love of the Lord.
Ray Martinez
According to the Bible: with God all things are possible.
Ray
Nashton
> On Oct 31, 4:47 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>>
>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>>> this should eliminate them.
>>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>>> Chris
>> ...but who ever questioned their mental capacity?
>
> Creationists do.
>
>> It is not their
>> mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
>> recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
>> discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
>> gradualistic transformism from one population to another as prescribed
>> by neodarwinism.
>
> FALSEHOOD #1
> The fossil record is full of the transitional forms predicted by
> evolutionary theory.
How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
>
>> Atheists
>
> FALSEHOOD #2.
> Tony, you really should stop repeating this particular falsehood. Your
> criteria make the Pope an atheist. Or are you going to stick with your
> explanation that he is a liar?
How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
>
>> are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
>> that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
>> mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
>> reproduction.
>
> FALSEHOOD #3
> As there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of scientific papers
> which describe this in nature and in the laboratory, one can only
> wonder who you think that you are fooling with such bald-faced lies.
How does this link chimps and other primates to humans? And where are
the laboratory experiments that confirm this and have they been reproduced?
>
>> NOT ONE SHRED OF DIRECT EVIDENCE.
>
> FALSEHOOD #4
> No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it will not become truth.
How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
>
>> I have repeatedly
>> asked for scientific reports disputing this.
>
>
> FALSEHOOD #5
> No, you haven't.
>
>> Not one report has been
>> produced---NOT ONE.
>
> FALSEHOOD #6
> They have, but you have either ignored them or lied about them.
>
>> Perhaps Thompson would care to produce one?
>>
>> There is no scientific evidence connecting the origin of man to chimp.
>
> FALSEHOOD #7
> Actually, there is. The evidence is there in our DNA, and in the
> fossil record. Lying about the evidence only makes you a liar. It
> doesn't make the evidence go away.
What specific fossil evidence links chimps to humans?
>
>> There is no fossil evidence
>
> FALSEHOOD #8
> What about the fossil record of early hominims?
How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
>
>> and there is no mechanism which can be
>> employed to test the claim.
>
> FALSEHOOD #9
> Of course there is! It's called the scientific method.
How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
>
>> The only thing connecting the two is an
>> atheistic metaphysical axiom that similarity is proof of lineal
>> connection.
>
> FALSEHOOD #10
> How many times does it have to be explained to you that science
> doesn't offer proof? Science offers testable explanations for
> phenomena which can be observed and measured. All scientific
> explanations are subject to revision or rejaction
What is rejaction, twit?
if that is what the
> evidence demands. Scientific explanations are *not* revised or
> rejected because they are in conflict with the religiously motivated
> dogma of a bunch of liars who ignore the evidence.
How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
Ray Martinez
Starting assumption is wrong. "Discovery and identification of
similarity means evolution has occurred." IT DOES NOT. Evolution has
not occurred unless you can show how.
Ray
SNIP....
Burkhard
Indeed not. But that they are discovered and identified exactly where
the theory predicts them to be - that is, in our closest relatives, not
animals more distantly related to us, is an empirical validation, a test
that was passed, of the theory.
Evolution has
> not occurred unless you can show how.
So you are buying now into a radical form of Berkeley type
subjectivism? Things do not occur unless they are observed? If I close
my fridge, its content disappears from this universe?
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....
>
RAM
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:22:23 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> in
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 31, 6:11 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> >>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> >>> this should eliminate them.
>
> >>>http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>
> >>> Chris
> >> They seem smarter then the average evolutionist, eh?
>
> > At least you have stopped pretending to be Christian in any meaningful
> > way.
>
> Just because we think you're mentally depraved and pretty darn stupid,
> doesn't mean we don't love you with the love of the Lord.
In other words you and he can keep acting like asses and call it
Christian love.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 4:47 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>>>
>>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>>>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>>>> this should eliminate them.
>>>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>>>> Chris
>>> ...but who ever questioned their mental capacity?
>>
>> Creationists do.
>>
>>> It is not their
>>> mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
>>> recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
>>> discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
>>> gradualistic transformism from one population to another as prescribed
>>> by neodarwinism.
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #1
>> The fossil record is full of the transitional forms predicted by
>> evolutionary theory.
>
>How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
Evolution links us.
>>
>>> Atheists
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #2.
>> Tony, you really should stop repeating this particular falsehood. Your
>> criteria make the Pope an atheist. Or are you going to stick with your
>> explanation that he is a liar?
>
>How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
Evolution links us.
>
>>
>>> are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
>>> that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
>>> mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
>>> reproduction.
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #3
>> As there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of scientific papers
>> which describe this in nature and in the laboratory, one can only
>> wonder who you think that you are fooling with such bald-faced lies.
>
>How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
Evolution links us.
>And where are
>the laboratory experiments that confirm this and have they been reproduced?
Yes, both human and chimp DNA has been sequenced. Proving the link.
>
>>
>>> NOT ONE SHRED OF DIRECT EVIDENCE.
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #4
>> No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it will not become truth.
>
>How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
Evolution links us.
>
>>
>>> I have repeatedly
>>> asked for scientific reports disputing this.
>>
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #5
>> No, you haven't.
>>
>>> Not one report has been
>>> produced---NOT ONE.
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #6
>> They have, but you have either ignored them or lied about them.
>>
>>> Perhaps Thompson would care to produce one?
>>>
>>> There is no scientific evidence connecting the origin of man to chimp.
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #7
>> Actually, there is. The evidence is there in our DNA, and in the
>> fossil record. Lying about the evidence only makes you a liar. It
>> doesn't make the evidence go away.
>
>What specific fossil evidence links chimps to humans?
All of the hominid fossils together.
Plus of course our current bones.
>
>>
>>> There is no fossil evidence
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #8
>> What about the fossil record of early hominims?
>
>How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
Evolution links us.
>
>>
>>> and there is no mechanism which can be
>>> employed to test the claim.
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #9
>> Of course there is! It's called the scientific method.
>
>How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
Evolution links us.
>
>>
>>> The only thing connecting the two is an
>>> atheistic metaphysical axiom that similarity is proof of lineal
>>> connection.
>>
>> FALSEHOOD #10
>> How many times does it have to be explained to you that science
>> doesn't offer proof? Science offers testable explanations for
>> phenomena which can be observed and measured. All scientific
>> explanations are subject to revision or rejaction
>
>What is rejaction, twit?
Oh look, a spilling flume.
>
> if that is what the
>> evidence demands. Scientific explanations are *not* revised or
>> rejected because they are in conflict with the religiously motivated
>> dogma of a bunch of liars who ignore the evidence.
>
>How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
Evolution links us.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe. Hey. Catahoula's do not fear much. Maybe they were looking for
some pay back.
The female loved the chickens and would play hide and seek with them.
It was quite funny to watch. She would run to one side of the coop and
they would dart to the other and this would go on untill both species
floped down tired and happy.
The smallest is 60lbs, the largest coyote here is around 40lbs. That
is not much of a match for three experienced hunting dogs.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not sure I know what you mean DA
All-Seeing-I
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:47:41 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> ><chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> >>Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> >>this should eliminate them.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony's post sounded completly reasonable to me FreeL
Ken Shackleton
Then why aren't all thing possible for you then?
Ray Martinez
When we close the fridge door the light does indeed go out (unless
there is a malfunction of course). I am NOT advocating Idealism or
reality based on relationship----YOU ARE.
Darwinists are saying that species originate from other species based
on similarity. We see no such relationship. The relationship is an
illusion unless you can show how it occurs. Each species has direct
relationship to the mind and power of its Creator.
Ray
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> Darwinists are saying that species originate from other species based
> on similarity. We see no such relationship. The relationship is an
> illusion unless you can show how it occurs. Each species has direct
> relationship to the mind and power of its Creator.
>
illusion unless you can show how it occurs"?
--
Mike.
Ye Old One
I doubt anyone wants your support.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Burkhard
That is the same argument again. You are claiming that things only
exists insofar they can be proven to exist - ontology becomes
epistemology, which is the hallmark of a (strong) idealistic position.
Now I would say things happen or do not happen independently of me
knowing about them, and theories re true or false independently from
me being able to prove them - which would again be idealism You seem
to disagree.
wf3h
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > FALSEHOOD #3
> > As there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of scientific papers
> > which describe this in nature and in the laboratory, one can only
> > wonder who you think that you are fooling with such bald-faced lies.
>
> How does this link chimps and other primates to humans? And where are
> the laboratory experiments that confirm this and have they been reproduced?
i gotta say, as a scientist who's not an evolutionary biologist, it's
funny watching the creationists with their pretend views of science
for 2000 years, creationism has led NOWHERE. it's been a total and
complete failure. rarely has an idea in history attracted so many
people...and been so wrong
yet they come in here, pretending they know science and telling
scientists how to do science.
NO scientist accepts nasht's view of science. none. not a single one.
if we DID, science would be a laboratory curiosity, and would have NO
applications outside the lab
it's obvious nasht has never spent a single day in a lab, never had to
formulate a hypothesis, etc. for him, religion...and ONLY
religion...is a guide to the natural world
in spite of the fact this view has always failed.
>
> > FALSEHOOD #7
> > Actually, there is. The evidence is there in our DNA, and in the
> > fossil record. Lying about the evidence only makes you a liar. It
> > doesn't make the evidence go away.
>
> What specific fossil evidence links chimps to humans?
gee. what specific info is there from creationism that 'god did it?"
creationism has collapsed. it's one reason 35% of young people are non
believers. in a generation there will be no more creationsists.
100% of scientists are evolutionists. in a few years, no one will be a
creationist.
wf3h
>
> Starting assumption is wrong. "Discovery and identification of
> similarity means evolution has occurred." IT DOES NOT. Evolution has
> not occurred unless you can show how.
that's what darwin did.
Caranx latus
One thing that you can ask is why God seems to create new species only
in close proximity to other *very* similar species. Why are new species
never created in areas where other very similar species are absent? I
suppose another way to phrase this is: why does God create species in a
pattern to make it look as though common descent were true?
Ray won't answer anyway. On this level of detail, nobody ever told him
what to think.
T Pagano
This is getting a tad old. Care to resolve this with links to his
posts or do you have the maturity of 5 year old?
Regards,
T Pagano
All-seeing-I
naww. The chickens were gone. As in *poof* only a pile of feathers
left behind. Defiantly the mark of a coyote hiding in wait.
The dogs are very protective of anything on (what they consider to be)
their property. They even look out for the cats. I have caught the
cats sleeping on top of the dogs on occasion.
I do believe animals are smarter then the average evolutionist!
Stuart
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> > Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> > this should eliminate them.
>
> >http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>
> I've seen sheep do just the same,
>
> Jan
From behind no doubt.
Stuart
Stuart
>
> When a coyote killed the chickens,
So thats the story your dogs gave you and their stickin' to it?
>every day for almost a week my dogs
> would go to their coop and just sit there for 10 minuets or so. As if
> they were visiting the scene of a crime.
Stuart
chris thompson
Given that all evolutionists are animals, I'd say you have a long way
to go with your terminology.
Of course, that does leave the Prokarya and groups like Fungi to the
creationists, so you might not be so far off.
Chris
Paul J Gans
>chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>> this should eliminate them.
>>
>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009?image=2
>I've seen sheep do just the same,
I've suspected for years that most mammals are far smarter than
we give them credit for. They often seem quite clever at things
that directly affect their lives.
Unfortunately, we tend to judge intelligence in terms of understanding
speech, doing arithmetic, and grasping logic. They don't give a damn
about politics, evolution, or sports. Not even football.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On Oct 31, 6:37 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> > You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>> > Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>> > this should eliminate them.
>>
>>
>> I've seen sheep do just the same,
>>
>Elephants too
>When a coyote killed the chickens, every day for almost a week my dogs
>would go to their coop and just sit there for 10 minuets or so. As if
>they were visiting the scene of a crime.
More likely waiting for the coyote to come back.
Dan Listermann
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:68e8b018-95f5-490c...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Starting assumption is wrong. "Discovery and identification of
similarity means evolution has occurred." IT DOES NOT. Evolution has
not occurred unless you can show how.
"How" has been explained to you over and over again, but you simply dismiss
it.
I will ask you a 'How." How did creation happen? What were its sequences?
What sort of evidence did it leave?
I await your weaseling!
.
Dan Listermann
Nat Geo."
You have eliminated all doubts that you are a moron like the morons at the
Creation Museum.
.
Dan Listermann
Darwinists are saying that species originate from other species based
on similarity. We see no such relationship. The relationship is an
illusion unless you can show how it occurs.
You see no similarity between, say, the cat family?
.
Paul J Gans
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:22:23 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> in
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 6:11 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>>>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>>>> this should eliminate them.
>>>>
>>>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>>>>
>>> They seem smarter then the average evolutionist, eh?
>>
>> At least you have stopped pretending to be Christian in any meaningful
>> way.
>>
>Just because we think you're mentally depraved and pretty darn stupid,
>doesn't mean we don't love you with the love of the Lord.
Have you no love of your own? You have to use hers?
All-seeing-I
The retard has been posting the same crap for 6 months or more. He was
answered 3 times but his evo-pals won't call him on it.
They love their double standards and double talking lies ya know.
Devils Advocaat
> On Oct 31, 10:44 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 Oct, 17:29, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> > > > Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> > > > this should eliminate them.
>
> > > >http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>
> > > > Chris
>
> > > Nat Geo.
>
>
> > Hey Ray, when are you going to explain how hydrated aluminium
> > silicates can become new species of living organisms?
>
> According to the Bible: with God all things are possible.
>
> Ray
In other words you have no basis for your claim that new species are
formed by "creation ex materia (from a clay-like ground)".
Which makes me suspect your "forthcoming" paper that is supposed to
refute the theory of evolution is equally baseless.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 4:47 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>
> >> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> >>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> >>> this should eliminate them.
> >>>http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
> >>> Chris
>
>
> >> It is not their
> >> mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
> >> recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
> >> discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
> >> gradualistic transformism from one population to another as prescribed
> >> by neodarwinism.
>
> > The fossil record is full of the transitional forms predicted by
> > evolutionary theory.
>
>
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension? I was identifying
specific falsehoods on Pagano's characteristically dishonest post.
Chimps and other primates are "linked to humans" by
1) DNA evidence
2) Evidence from comparative anatomy
3) Behavioural evidence
4) The fossil record
The scientific explanation for this evidence is shared evolutionary
ancestry.
If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
If all you can do is to resort to petty insults and irrelevancies it
demonstrates the weakness of your position.
>
> >> Atheists
>
> > FALSEHOOD #2.
> > Tony, you really should stop repeating this particular falsehood. Your
> > criteria make the Pope an atheist. Or are you going to stick with your
> > explanation that he is a liar?
>
> How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
>
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension? I was identifying
specific falsehoods on Pagano's characteristically dishonest post.
Chimps and other primates are "linked to humans" by
1) DNA evidence
2) Evidence from comparative anatomy
3) Behavioural evidence
4) The fossil record
The scientific explanation for this evidence is shared evolutionary
ancestry.
If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
If all you can do is to resort to petty insults and irrelevancies it
demonstrates the weakness of your position.
>
>
> >> are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
> >> that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
> >> mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
> >> reproduction.
>
> > FALSEHOOD #3
> > As there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of scientific papers
> > which describe this in nature and in the laboratory, one can only
> > wonder who you think that you are fooling with such bald-faced lies.
>
> How does this link chimps and other primates to humans? And where are
> the laboratory experiments that confirm this and have they been reproduced?
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension? I was identifying
specific falsehoods on Pagano's characteristically dishonest post.
Chimps and other primates are "linked to humans" by
1) DNA evidence
2) Evidence from comparative anatomy
3) Behavioural evidence
4) The fossil record
The scientific explanation for this evidence is shared evolutionary
ancestry.
If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
If all you can do is to resort to petty insults and irrelevancies it
demonstrates the weakness of your position.
>
>
>
> >> NOT ONE SHRED OF DIRECT EVIDENCE.
>
> > FALSEHOOD #4
> > No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it will not become truth.
>
> How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
>
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension? I was identifying
specific falsehoods on Pagano's characteristically dishonest post.
Chimps and other primates are "linked to humans" by
1) DNA evidence
2) Evidence from comparative anatomy
3) Behavioural evidence
4) The fossil record
The scientific explanation for this evidence is shared evolutionary
ancestry.
If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
If all you can do is to resort to petty insults and irrelevancies it
demonstrates the weakness of your position.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I have repeatedly
> >> asked for scientific reports disputing this.
>
> > FALSEHOOD #5
> > No, you haven't.
>
> >> Not one report has been
> >> produced---NOT ONE.
>
> > FALSEHOOD #6
> > They have, but you have either ignored them or lied about them.
>
> >> Perhaps Thompson would care to produce one?
>
> >> There is no scientific evidence connecting the origin of man to chimp.
>
> > FALSEHOOD #7
> > Actually, there is. The evidence is there in our DNA, and in the
> > fossil record. Lying about the evidence only makes you a liar. It
> > doesn't make the evidence go away.
>
> What specific fossil evidence links chimps to humans?
The fossil record of early hominims, and the rather limited fossil
record of chimps.
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension? I was identifying
specific falsehoods on Pagano's characteristically dishonest post.
Chimps and other primates are "linked to humans" by
1) DNA evidence
2) Evidence from comparative anatomy
3) Behavioural evidence
4) The fossil record
The scientific explanation for this evidence is shared evolutionary
ancestry.
If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
If all you can do is to resort to petty insults and irrelevancies it
demonstrates the weakness of your position.
>
>
>
> >> There is no fossil evidence
>
> > FALSEHOOD #8
> > What about the fossil record of early hominims?
>
> How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
>
The scientific explanation for this evidence is shared evolutionary
ancestry.
If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
If all you can do is to resort to petty insults and irrelevancies it
demonstrates the weakness of your position.
>
>
> >> and there is no mechanism which can be
> >> employed to test the claim.
>
> > FALSEHOOD #9
> > Of course there is! It's called the scientific method.
>
> How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
>
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension? I was identifying
specific falsehoods on Pagano's characteristically dishonest post.
Chimps and other primates are "linked to humans" by
1) DNA evidence
2) Evidence from comparative anatomy
3) Behavioural evidence
4) The fossil record
The scientific explanation for this evidence is shared evolutionary
ancestry.
If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
If all you can do is to resort to petty insults and irrelevancies it
demonstrates the weakness of your position.
>
>
> >> The only thing connecting the two is an
> >> atheistic metaphysical axiom that similarity is proof of lineal
> >> connection.
>
> > FALSEHOOD #10
> > How many times does it have to be explained to you that science
> > doesn't offer proof? Science offers testable explanations for
> > phenomena which can be observed and measured. All scientific
> > explanations are subject to revision or rejaction
>
> What is rejaction, twit?
Rejection. It's called a mistyping. To any intelligent person it's
clear that I meant to type "rejection". Evidently you lack the
intelligence to realise that. I wonder why you feel it necessary to
proclaim your stupidity in this way.
>
> if that is what the
>
> > evidence demands. Scientific explanations are *not* revised or
> > rejected because they are in conflict with the religiously motivated
> > dogma of a bunch of liars who ignore the evidence.
>
> How does this link chimps and other primates to humans?
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension? I was identifying
specific falsehoods on Pagano's characteristically dishonest post.
Chimps and other primates are "linked to humans" by
1) DNA evidence
2) Evidence from comparative anatomy
3) Behavioural evidence
4) The fossil record
The scientific explanation for this evidence is shared evolutionary
ancestry.
If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
If all you can do is to resort to petty insults and irrelevancies it
demonstrates the weakness of your position.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Please produce the scientific report establishing that
> >> this is more than atheistic metaphysicsy?
>
> >> BTW whatever happened to them bat cheek teeth?
>
> >> Regards,
> >> T Pagano
>
> >> So far Elsberry and Forrest were completely embarrassed and
> >> discredited when they produced scientific reports.
>
> > Only in your fantasy world, Tony.
>
> >> Elsberry
> >> practically vanished from the forum after I discredited him. Forrest
> >> is still punch drunk.
>
> > You mean after I have listed 34 outright falsehoods in your past two
> > posts, Tony?
>
> > Do you honestly think that anyone is taken in by such a blatant lie?
>
> > RF
RF
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:973bfa56-1d7a-4017...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
"They love their double standards and double talking lies ya know."
More projection. . .
.
Augray
<hciaih$2ga$2...@aioe.org> :
>chris thompson wrote:
>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>> this should eliminate them.
>>
>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009?image=2
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>Which one are you in the photo?
When people have nothing to say, they usually resort to ad homs.
- Nashton
Augray
<hciaoa$2ga$3...@aioe.org> :
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:22:23 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> in
>> <59317825-8685-4d23...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 6:11 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>>>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>>>> this should eliminate them.
>>>>
>>>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>> They seem smarter then the average evolutionist, eh?
>>
>> At least you have stopped pretending to be Christian in any meaningful
>> way.
>
>Just because we think you're mentally depraved and pretty darn stupid,
>doesn't mean we don't love you with the love of the Lord.
Then how does one distinguish your behavior from that of a
non-Christian? It would seem that there's no way to tell one from the
other.
T Pagano
I suspected as much.
Devils Advocaat
Perhaps you could point out where you answered him, instead of just
claiming you have done so?
Devils Advocaat
In a thread called "How About THAT" started by the ASI when he was
called [M]adman, way back on March 26th, 2009 Dave Oldridge asked [M]
adman:
"Name one Cambrian mammal"
And [M]adman's reply was:
"Trilobites"
And as far as I can tell, he has never defended this answer, nor has
he admitted that the said answer was wrong.
So that makes me wonder who is actually lying right now.
Ye Old One
Liar!
> but his evo-pals won't call him on it.
>
>They love their double standards and double talking lies ya know.
Liar!
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ye Old One
Sure, select one and I'll dig it up for you.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
--
Bob.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product
of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No
interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind, Jan. 3, 1954.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
Don Cates
> On Oct 31, 9:47 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 4:47 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
>>>> that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
>>>> mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
>>>> reproduction.
>>> FALSEHOOD #3
>>> As there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of scientific papers
>>> which describe this in nature and in the laboratory, one can only
>>> wonder who you think that you are fooling with such bald-faced lies.
>> How does this link chimps and other primates to humans? And where are
>> the laboratory experiments that confirm this and have they been reproduced?
>
between chimps and humans? I can't think of one.
> Are you incapable of reading for comprehension? I was identifying
> specific falsehoods on Pagano's characteristically dishonest post.
>
> Chimps and other primates are "linked to humans" by
> 1) DNA evidence
> 2) Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 3) Behavioural evidence
> 4) The fossil record
>
> The scientific explanation for this evidence is shared evolutionary
> ancestry.
> If you have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested
> using the tools of science, feel free to offer it.
> If all you can do is to resort to petty insults and irrelevancies it
> demonstrates the weakness of your position.
>
[big snip]
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
Greg G.
But that would violate the double standard (mentioned below) that they
project on to others.
>
>
>
>
>
> > They love their double standards and double talking lies ya know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Greg G.
I recall that he did admit that he was wrong about trilobites being
mammals. Please don't ask me to prove that wasn't a figment of my
imagination.
Reddfrogg
> On Oct 31, 10:48 am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > about using actual specific scientific empirical evidence of primate
> > relatedness for your argument rather than empty sophomoric
> > bloviations. Take a scientific research article that demonstrates
> > primate relatedness and show us where, why and how it is wrong.
>
> Starting assumption is wrong. "Discovery and identification of
> similarity means evolution has occurred." IT DOES NOT. Evolution has
Evolution has happened, Ray, and you've been told how many times.
Evolution happens when there is change in allele frequencies in a
population over time. This happens by random mutations becoming fixed
in that population. Among the mechanisms that fix those mutations
are natural selection, sexual selection, gene drift, and artificial
selection.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Oct 31, 3:06 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > the theory predicts them to be - that is, in our closest relatives, not
> > animals more distantly related to us, is an empirical validation, a test
> > that was passed, of the theory.
>
> > Evolution has
>
> > > not occurred unless you can show how.
>
> > So you are buying now into a radical form of Berkeley type
> > subjectivism? Things do not occur unless they are observed? If I close
> > my fridge, its content disappears from this universe?
>
> When we close the fridge door the light does indeed go out (unless
> there is a malfunction of course). I am NOT advocating Idealism or
> reality based on relationship----YOU ARE.
Ray, the closeness of chimps to humans is not "reality based on
relationships" but relationship based on reality. You also don't
seem to know what the term "idealism" means in this context.
>
> Darwinists are saying that species originate from other species based
> on similarity.
No, but that similarity is one prediction of the theory of common
descent. That one species originates from another species is factual
because it's been observed. Similarity of closely related groups
originates from common descent.
>We see no such relationship
Once again, Ray, who is the "we"? Your own blindness doesn't affect
others.
>The relationship is an
> illusion unless you can show how it occurs.
How relationship occurs is well known. It's common descent.
You've been told this often enough.
>Each species has direct
> relationship to the mind and power of its Creator.
Which doesn't explain why there is a close relationship, physically,
anatomically, genetically, and molecularly between species.
Really, Ray, you need to drop the ignorance and come to the party.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Oct 31, 10:44 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 31 Oct, 17:29, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 31, 4:11 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> > > > Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> > > > this should eliminate them.
>
> > > >http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>
> > > > Chris
>
> > > Nat Geo.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Hey Ray, when are you going to explain how hydrated aluminium
> > silicates can become new species of living organisms?
>
> According to the Bible: with God all things are possible.
Do you have any known mechanism by which this can happen? Also, Ray,
if all things are possible, why can't God use evolution as his means
of creation?
DJT
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Tony, All-seeing-I has a worse reputation than you do here. Do you
really want to be thrown into his bucket of slime?
heekster
ASI is claiming that it was a joke.
Which is nothing more than a post hoc, mealy-mouthed rationalization.
Garamond Lethe
> richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 9:47 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 31, 4:47 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> [big snip]
>>
>>>
>>>>> are well aware that there isn't one shred of direct evidence
>>>>> that biological novelty arises and proceeds to maturity via random
>>>>> mutations conjoined to differential survival and differential
>>>>> reproduction.
>>>> FALSEHOOD #3
>>>> As there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of scientific papers
>>>> which describe this in nature and in the laboratory, one can only
>>>> wonder who you think that you are fooling with such bald-faced lies.
>>> How does this link chimps and other primates to humans? And where are
>>> the laboratory experiments that confirm this and have they been reproduced?
>>
> This one was more of a non-sequitur. Is there any "biological novelty"
> between chimps and humans? I can't think of one.
Depends on what you mean by novelty, but adults having the ability to
digest milk might qualify. (Or you could just as easily say that
breaking the "off" switch isn't sufficient for declaring something a
new feature, even if it does lead to an increase in fitness.)
But yeah, other than that I can't think of one either.
Hairesis
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
>> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of
>>> chimps, this should eliminate them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>>
>> ...but who ever questioned their mental capacity? It is not their
>> mental capacity but their origin which is at issue. Dawkins's most
>> recent babbling notwithstanding the fossil record shows nothing but
>> discrete, mature, unchanging populations not the naturalistic
>> gradualistic transformism from one population to another as
>> prescribed by neodarwinism.
You boobs fell for it again. The original post was about chimps who showed
every sign of feeling *sorrow*, *compassion*, *sadness*, *empathy*, a *sense
of loss*, and various other reactions that we humans know to be part of *the
experience of bereavement*. And Chris referred to these things as being part
of the chimps' "mental capacity" because he knows perfectly well that they
don't stem from the spleen or the kneecaps.
Whereupon the idiot Pagano started crapping on about how "no-one ever
disputed chimp intelligence" -- and all you idiots obediently ran off to
fight on that territory and started arguing about Dawkins and gradualism and
beneficial mutations and stuff ... in spite of the fact that 'intelligence'
wasn't part of anything that anyone had been talking about. And in so doing
you completely overlooked the reason he had to do that -- which was that he
was just *too freaked out* by the obvious existence of human-type empathic
and affective reactions in what his empty-headed world-view considers mere
soul-less, amoral animals.
You'd *already won the fight* -- think about it: his pathetic, delusional
world *practically came to an end* when he saw that photo ... he must have
felt every bit like Governor George Wallace being handed a picture of his
daughter screwing Malcolm X -- but you allowed the mendacious litle shit to
pretend that the fight hadn't even started yet...
What a crowd of push-overs you are... If you'd had the presence of mind to
keep stressing the human-ness of chimps (and other species), you might even
have got the worthless arsehole to kill himself... Now we have to start *all
over again*...
H.
Free Lunch
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in talk.origins:
Ray doesn't approve and God does whatever Ray demands.
John Wilkins
<a??es??@hairesis.co.uk> wrote:
Too right. I think you should demand your money back.
All-Seeing-I
> On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:22:23 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> in
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> On Oct 31, 6:11 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> > >>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> > >>> this should eliminate them.
>
>
> > >>> Chris
> > >> They seem smarter then the average evolutionist, eh?
>
> > > At least you have stopped pretending to be Christian in any meaningful
> > > way.
>
> > Just because we think you're mentally depraved and pretty darn stupid,
> > doesn't mean we don't love you with the love of the Lord.
>
> Christian love.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jesus never told us to lay down and be stupid moron. On the contrary.
Jesus said:
"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd
as serpents and innocent as doves" Matthew 10:16
Which means exactly what Nashton said. We may love you with the love
of the Lord, but you will be dealt with on the terms that you set. Not
us.
Wanna play nice. I'm down with that. Wanna play nasty? I can do that
too.
--
I have the heart of an Angel and the mind of a snake says....
The All Seeing I
All-Seeing-I
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:700955c6-b2df-4012...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 4:11 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> "You have eliminated all doubts that you are a moron like the morons at
> Nat Geo."
>
> Creation Museum.
>
> .
You guys get so pissed when Ray is right.
Why is that?
Tom McDonald
Wouldn't know. Hasn't happened yet.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
I wouldn't know. Ray has an unblemished track record of being wrong or
"not even wrong".
>Why is that?
You are mistaken. Ray was not right. You need to learn a little about
biology.
Ray Martinez
It's called 'interventionism,' which is a foci of Theism. I suggest
that you immerse yourself in some basic History of Science.
> Also, Ray,
> if all things are possible, why can't God use evolution as his means
> of creation?
>
> DJT
Because the Bible says God used Creationism (interventionism). No one
can stop anyone from believing that Intelligence unleashed
unintelligent process. The fact of the matter is that there is no
textual or physical evidence to support such an illogical absurdity.
The absurdity is only advocated as an attempt to obscure the pro-
Atheism objective claims of evolution.
And I didn't say that all things are possible. I said according to the
Bible *with God* all things are possible. Evolution is not with God----
Creationism is with God. If you think otherwise then I will let the
Atheist-evolutionists that are reading these exchanges correct you.
Ray
wf3h
> On Oct 31, 4:21 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > In other words you and he can keep acting like asses and call it
> > Christian love.-
>
> Jesus never told us to lay down and be stupid moron.
nah, you invented that part on your own
>
> Wanna play nice. I'm down with that. Wanna play nasty? I can do that
> too.
you couldn't play nasty if someone gave you a meat cleaver and changed
your name to hannibal lector.
>
Ray Martinez
Either that or you don't.
>
>
> > Darwinists are saying that species originate from other species based
> > on similarity.
>
> No, but that similarity is one prediction of the theory of common
> descent. That one species originates from another species is factual
> because it's been observed. Similarity of closely related groups
> originates from common descent.
>
> >We see no such relationship
>
> Once again, Ray, who is the "we"? Your own blindness doesn't affect
> others.
>
We = Natural Theologians.
> >The relationship is an
> > illusion unless you can show how it occurs.
>
> How relationship occurs is well known. It's common descent.
> You've been told this often enough.
>
CD is not a mechanism, but an alleged result of the action of
unspecified natural processes. I recognize that you are, once again,
attempting to protect the groundless claims of neo-Darwinism as
pontificated by John Harshman. To assert CD a mechanism is ad hoc----a
recognition of the inadequacy of natural selection. Harshman, like
yourself, appears to be ignorant concerning the history of
evolutionism. If he was competent in said discipline he would not be
making such a ridiculous claim. He is not only saying that natural
selection is deficient, he is also admitting that he has no mechanism
to justify explanation of phenomena in favor of CD. There is nothing
new under the sun. You guys are arguing standard T. H. Huxley
"evolutionism" based solely on homology. Huxley, circa 1863, rejected
natural selection because it had not been observed in nature. He
expounded the "fact of evolution" based on, for example, the close
similarities between ape and human brains. Darwin, of course, never
even entertained the idea of advocating transmutation absent
mechanism. "CD a mechanism"? It sounds good in front of an
unsuspecting audience but those of us who study the history of science
know that you are begging the question.
Ray
John McKendry
Ah, yes, "he made me do it", the battle cry of the six-year-old
moralist since the beginning of time. You will be considered a
grown-up when you realize that grown-ups determine their behavior
according to their own standards of right and wrong, regardless of
how others behave toward them. There are words of Jesus to this
effect; I suspect you know what they are.
> --
> I have the heart of an Angel and the mind of a snake says....
>
> The All Seeing I
And I am Marie of Rumania.
John
RAM
Precisely. The classic fundamentalists who believe they can be nasty,
fight or kill for God. Scriptures are so flexible so as to allow
anything to be viewed as Christian in a fundamentalists hands.
Remember I grew up in this hypocritical tradition. I know it well. I
was taught to do exactly as you just did.
So how do Christians differ form the non Christian, communists or
atheists or the Taliban. Your Christian values can be stretched to
cover any evil practice that your presumed enemies do. So your God
likes you to harm, fight or kill others because you know what he
really thinks. Sounds like the typical political stand of most
revolutionary parties in history but not a religion.
I used to believe in your God till I had to deal with hypocritical
pricks like you.
And yes your evolutionary based crocodile brain feeds your Christian
theology red meat. I've seen it in church schisms, the Creationist
here on TO and they like you all knew they we acting out Gods
desires. And in the schisms each fundamentalist group hated the
others who they knew were acting out the devils wishes. Of Course
they would seldom say this to their Christian protagonist knowing full
well it would be spit back at them.
Your fundamentalist religious beliefs make you, Nashton, Tony and
others look like moral midgets and rightly as hypocrites. Most of the
Christians I know are embarrassed by your idiocies. Maybe you should
think about your religious beliefs more and less about science. There
is clearly a pox in your creationist convictions.
Matt Silberstein
<na...@na.ca> in <hciaoa$2ga$3...@aioe.org> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:22:23 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> in
>> <59317825-8685-4d23...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 6:11 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
>>>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
>>>> this should eliminate them.
>>>>
>>>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>> They seem smarter then the average evolutionist, eh?
>>
>> At least you have stopped pretending to be Christian in any meaningful
>> way.
>>
>
>Just because we think you're mentally depraved and pretty darn stupid,
>doesn't mean we don't love you with the love of the Lord.
I find this kind of trolling, this extensive effort to make Christians
look bad, dishonest and offensive.
--
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"
Devils Advocaat
Do you have any evidence that new species are formed by "creation ex
materia (from a clay-like ground)"?
Of course you don't.
>
> And I didn't say that all things are possible. I said according to the
> Bible *with God* all things are possible. Evolution is not with God----
> Creationism is with God. If you think otherwise then I will let the
> Atheist-evolutionists that are reading these exchanges correct you.
Okay, you declare that "with God all things are possible", but then
you slap a restriction on what is possible "with God".
That doesn't make sense.
>
> Ray
Earle Jones
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
[...]
> >
> > > > > Evolution has
> >
> > > > > not occurred unless you can show how.
*
God did not create the universe unless you can show how.
earle
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 1, 9:22 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > Ray, the closeness of chimps to humans is not "reality based on
> > relationships" but relationship based on reality. You also don't
> > seem to know what the term "idealism" means in this context.
>
> Either that or you don't.
Since you use the term wrongly, it's not me.
>
>
>
> > > Darwinists are saying that species originate from other species based
> > > on similarity.
>
> > No, but that similarity is one prediction of the theory of common
> > descent. That one species originates from another species is factual
> > because it's been observed. Similarity of closely related groups
> > originates from common descent.
>
> > >We see no such relationship
>
> > Once again, Ray, who is the "we"? Your own blindness doesn't affect
> > others.
>
> We = Natural Theologians.
Ray, you are not a "natural theologian", and none of the real "natural
theolgians" held that position.
>
> > >The relationship is an
> > > illusion unless you can show how it occurs.
>
> > How relationship occurs is well known. It's common descent.
> > You've been told this often enough.
>
> CD is not a mechanism, but an alleged result of the action of
> unspecified natural processes.
as was pointed out to you before, Common Descent is indeed a mechanism
that produces the genetic and anatomical similarity between closely
related groups.
>I recognize that you are, once again,
> attempting to protect the groundless claims of neo-Darwinism as
> pontificated by John Harshman.
Dr Harshman is much more educated that you are on this subject, but I
wasn't promoting John's claims, but the facts in this case.
> To assert CD a mechanism is ad hoc----a
> recognition of the inadequacy of natural selection.
Again you use terms you don't understand, ie "ad hoc". Common
descent is a mechanism that produces similarity. How is this
supposedly a problem for natural selection??
>Harshman, like
> yourself, appears to be ignorant concerning the history of
> evolutionism.
The "history of evolutionism' is entirely irrelevant to the facts in
this matter. Despite your own ignorance of history, and science, it's
simply not relevant.
>If he was competent in said discipline he would not be
> making such a ridiculous claim.
Ray, being incompetent yourself, you don't understand what John was
saying, and in any case, I'm not basing my statement on John's. I'm
pointing out that common descent is indeed a mechanism that produces
the similarities seen in closely related groups.
>He is not only saying that natural
> selection is deficient, he is also admitting that he has no mechanism
> to justify explanation of phenomena in favor of CD.
Again, John is not saying anything like that. Natural selection is
not what I'm discussing here, and there's nothing that indicates that
it's not sufficent to do what it does.
The fact remains that common descent is the explanation for the
similarity between closely related groups. I'm not discussing the
role of natural selection in fixing adaptive mutations, but in
explaining why similarity exists.
>There is nothing
> new under the sun. You guys are arguing standard T. H. Huxley
> "evolutionism" based solely on homology.
I'm not arguing homology here, but pointing out that common descent is
what explains the similarity between closely related groups.
>Huxley, circa 1863, rejected
> natural selection because it had not been observed in nature.
That's a misunderstanding of Huxley, and a false statement. Natural
selection is, and was observed in nature.
> He
> expounded the "fact of evolution" based on, for example, the close
> similarities between ape and human brains. Darwin, of course, never
> even entertained the idea of advocating transmutation absent
> mechanism.
Once again, Ray, common descent IS a mechanism. It explains the
similarities. It's evolution that explains how the differences
accrued between the species.
>"CD a mechanism"? It sounds good in front of an
> unsuspecting audience but those of us who study the history of science
> know that you are begging the question.
By your absurdites in this post, you belie your claim to "study the
history of science". Again, I'm not talking here about natural
selection, or about how populations diverge. I'm talking about the
mechanism that produces the similaritiy between closely related
populations. That mechanism is common descent.
Your bizarre and misunderstood ideas about Huxley et al only
underscores your own ignorance in the matter.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 1, 9:25 am, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 2:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 31, 10:44 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 31 Oct, 17:29, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 31, 4:11 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> > > > > > Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> > > > > > this should eliminate them.
>
> > > > > >http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>
> > > > > > Chris
>
> > > > > You have eliminated all doubts that you are a moron like the morons at
> > > > > Nat Geo.
>
> > > > > Ray
>
> > > > Hey Ray, when are you going to explain how hydrated aluminium
> > > > silicates can become new species of living organisms?
>
> > > According to the Bible: with God all things are possible.
>
> > Do you have any known mechanism by which this can happen?
>
> It's called 'interventionism,' which is a foci of Theism. I suggest
> that you immerse yourself in some basic History of Science.
Is there anyone but yourself who calls it that? As far as theism is
concerned, that has nothing to do with science.
>
> > Also, Ray,
> > if all things are possible, why can't God use evolution as his means
> > of creation?
>
> > DJT
>
> Because the Bible says God used Creationism (interventionism).
Where, in the Bible does anyone use that term?
> No one
> can stop anyone from believing that Intelligence unleashed
> unintelligent process.
So, why do you keep insisting that it's not possible?
>The fact of the matter is that there is no
> textual or physical evidence to support such an illogical absurdity.
There is nothing logically absurd about an intelligent being using an
unintelligent process to create. You simply dislike the concept
because you limit God's scope.
> The absurdity is only advocated as an attempt to obscure the pro-
> Atheism objective claims of evolution.
There's no "absurdity" and no "atheism objective claims" in
evolution. Those are both figments or your imagination.
>
> And I didn't say that all things are possible. I said according to the
> Bible *with God* all things are possible
Which would include God using evolution to create.
>Evolution is not with God----
Because you say so? Again, why do you limit how God can do
things?
> Creationism is with God.
Creationism is limiting God to performing magic tricks. It makes God
into a cheap magician.
>If you think otherwise then I will let the
> Atheist-evolutionists that are reading these exchanges correct you.
Ray, unlike you, I don't base my beliefs on what atheists believe, or
claim. I accept evolution because it's good science. If an atheist
says that God can't use evolution to create, he or she is just as
wrong as you are.
DJT
All-seeing-I
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:52:59 -0500, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
That was a rather lame attempt to 'divide and conquer' free-puke
Your reputation for lies and dishonest postings is legendary
throughout the internet
All-seeing-I
No. Not precisely. The book says what it says. It is you atheist pukes
that try to flip christian behavior into something that is suspose to
be warm fuzzy all of the time. Well it is not.
Jesus turned over the tables in the temple and he beat the money
changers out of the building with a home made whip. Why? because he
had to. They were defiling the temple in much the same way evolution
defiles mankind's belief in God.
>
> Remember I grew up in this hypocritical tradition. I know it well. I
> was taught to do exactly as you just did.
Doubtful.
> So how do Christians differ form the non Christian, communists or
> atheists or the Taliban. Your Christian values can be stretched to
> cover any evil practice that your presumed enemies do. So your God
> likes you to harm, fight or kill others because you know what he
> really thinks. Sounds like the typical political stand of most
> revolutionary parties in history but not a religion.
>
> I used to believe in your God till I had to deal with hypocritical
> pricks like you.
I would say you have brain damage.
> And yes your evolutionary based crocodile brain feeds your Christian
> theology red meat. I've seen it in church schisms, the Creationist
> here on TO and they like you all knew they we acting out Gods
> desires. And in the schisms each fundamentalist group hated the
> others who they knew were acting out the devils wishes. Of Course
> they would seldom say this to their Christian protagonist knowing full
> well it would be spit back at them.
>
> Your fundamentalist religious beliefs make you, Nashton, Tony and
> others look like moral midgets and rightly as hypocrites. Most of the
> Christians I know are embarrassed by your idiocies. Maybe you should
> think about your religious beliefs more and less about science. There
> is clearly a pox in your creationist convictions.- Hide quoted text -
>
I suggest professional help, a good strait jacket and strong
sedatives.
DO IT SOON!
All-seeing-I
> On 1 Nov, 07:54, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 6:23 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:54:57 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > > >On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:11:03 -0700 (PDT), All-Seeing-I
> > > ><allseei...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > > >>On Oct 31, 12:04 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > > >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:47:41 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> > > >>> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > > >>> ><chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> >>You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> > > >>> >>Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of chimps,
> > > >>> >>this should eliminate them.
>
> > > >>> >>http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2009...
>
> > > >>> >>Chris
>
>
> > > >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> claiming you have done so?
It was LAST FREEKING WEEK
for the third time.
Devils Advocaat
Oh really? Then you should have no trouble pointing out exactly where
you responded to that list of his.
Ye Old One
Never seen it happen so I can't comment.
>
>Why is that?
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Devils Advocaat
When has he ever been right?
>
> Why is that?
All-seeing-I
> > T Pagano wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:11:20 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
> >> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> You've all probably seen this photo from the November National
> >>> Geographic. If anyone had doubts about the mental capacity of
> >>> chimps, this should eliminate them.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
heh...Kill himself eh?
Well. I think we all know who the "worthless asshole" is. THAT would
be you.
But. There is an Achilles heel to Chris's picture as well; another
explanation so-to-speak; Two sides of the coin and all that.
It seems to me that animals are actually smarter then humans in many
ways. But we are just now beginning to notice just how smart. Animals
can also hear frequencies that we cannot hear, communicate in ways
that we cannot communicate, have instincts that seem sharper then
ours, can see and hear better. They probably have better perception
abilities as well. So it comes as no real surprise that animals would
feel "loss", *sorrow*, *compassion*, *sadness*, *empathy*, and various
other reactions that we humans know to be part of *the experience of
bereavement*.
Why? Because they are living creatures and they were all created by
the same designer.
If you think animals displaying reactions that we humans know to be
part of *the experience of bereavement is some sort of evidence for
evolution, well, that would be incorrect. It could also be that what
you are witnessing is the handi-work of an intelligence that we cannot
fathom.
I'll explain.
Observe the mosquito. It darts away quickly when you go to swat it.
Observe the common black fly. It will do the same. By your logic,
because flys and mosquito's know to run from danger like mankind knows
how to run from danger then that is some sort of evidence that man
evolved. In actuality what you are observing is a design feature. Only
a designer could give both animals and insects the ability to
recognize danger and then to run like hell from it. Likewise chimps
can feel bereavement as part of a designed and built in response to
learn.
Feeling loss is part of the mechanism that the chimps learn from. They
see the danger, witness the accident, and then see the result. Feeling
loss helps them remember the result of a specific dangerous action and
teaches them what is and is not dangerous.
That is not exactly describing an "evolved" trait if you ask me, but,
it is one hell of an idea to get life to quickly remember what is and
is not dangerous. Without the ability to quickly learn what is and is
not dangerous then all of life would fall into a hole and die before
learning the hole is dangerous and the result is loss and death.
So. Now that you see there can be more then one explanation for what
we see in Chris's picture, please, DO NOT run out and kill yourself.
Because in the bible God says "All flesh will see my power to save".
This suggest that God intends a restoration of the animals as well as
mankind. Even atheist's pukes such as yourself can get in on that
saving power.
As a side note. If a nuclear bomb blew Briton off of the face of the
earth I seriously doubt anyone else on earth would cry. Why is that?
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<218e0ebf-5ae7-4469...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> :
[big snip]
>As a side note. If a nuclear bomb blew Briton off of the face of the
>earth I seriously doubt anyone else on earth would cry. Why is that?
Because you're a sociopath?
Caranx latus
Correct.
wf3h
> On Nov 1, 9:33 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Precisely. The classic fundamentalists who believe they can be nasty,
> > fight or kill for God. Scriptures are so flexible so as to allow
> > anything to be viewed as Christian in a fundamentalists hands.
>
> No. Not precisely. The book says what it says. It is you atheist pukes
> that try to flip christian behavior into something that is suspose to
> be warm fuzzy all of the time. Well it is not.
given that every single slave owner in US history was a creationist,
i'd say you got some 'splainin' to do if you believe this
>
> Jesus turned over the tables in the temple and he beat the money
> changers out of the building with a home made whip. Why? because he
> had to. They were defiling the temple in much the same way evolution
> defiles mankind's belief in God.
in your opinion. not the opinion of the world's christian community.
pretty much the opinion only of crazed american christian fundies.
>
> > I used to believe in your God till I had to deal with hypocritical
> > pricks like you.
>
> I would say you have brain damage.
notice how the creationist can't deal with facts?
>
> > Your fundamentalist religious beliefs make you, Nashton, Tony and
> > others look like moral midgets and rightly as hypocrites. Most of the
> > Christians I know are embarrassed by your idiocies. Maybe you should
> > think about your religious beliefs more and less about science. There
> > is clearly a pox in your creationist convictions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I suggest professional help, a good strait jacket and strong
> sedatives.
>
AND has to fall back on cliches when his beliefs are
challenged...which is why creationism has explained nothing in 2000
years
wf3h
> Well. I think we all know who the "worthless asshole" is. THAT would
> be you.
>
> But. There is an Achilles heel to Chris's picture as well; another
> explanation so-to-speak; Two sides of the coin and all that.
>
> It seems to me that animals are actually smarter then humans in many
> ways.
we know that because of science
But we are just now beginning to notice just how smart. Animals
> can also hear frequencies that we cannot hear, communicate in ways
> that we cannot communicate,
we know that because of science. creationism didn't even know animals
HAD brains. creatinism didn't even know what 'frequencies' were or
that some were outside human ranges...creationism said this was due to
ghosts and goblins.
>
> Why? Because they are living creatures and they were all created by
> the same designer.
HOW were they created? the creationist retreats into an intellectual
cave and can tell us nothing...nothing at all
>
> If you think animals displaying reactions that we humans know to be
> part of *the experience of bereavement is some sort of evidence for
> evolution, well, that would be incorrect. It could also be that what
> you are witnessing is the handi-work of an intelligence that we cannot
> fathom.
well, you said it so it must be so. of course, the wizard of oz could
have given them a heart. that explains things as well as creationism
does. really!
>
> I'll explain.
>
> Observe the mosquito. It darts away quickly when you go to swat it.
> Observe the common black fly. It will do the same. By your logic,
> because flys and mosquito's know to run from danger like mankind knows
> how to run from danger then that is some sort of evidence that man
> evolved. In actuality what you are observing is a design feature.
ever seen the design of a house build itself? nope. it takes a PROCESS
using NATURAL LAWS...things like levers, friction, pulleys, gravity
etc. all of which creationism says don't exist.
so creationism is a magic based view of the world
>
> Feeling loss is part of the mechanism that the chimps learn from. They
> see the danger, witness the accident, and then see the result. Feeling
> loss helps them remember the result of a specific dangerous action and
> teaches them what is and is not dangerous.
>
> That is not exactly describing an "evolved" trait if you ask me, but,
> it is one hell of an idea to get life to quickly remember what is and
> is not dangerous. Without the ability to quickly learn what is and is
> not dangerous then all of life would fall into a hole and die before
> learning the hole is dangerous and the result is loss and death.
and were there organisms that DIDNT have these features? yep. did they
die without reproducing? yep. so EVOLUTION explains HOW the chimps got
their feelings
creationism? 'the wizard of oz did it'
Ye Old One
He did respond, but he didn't answer. There is a big difference.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Another lie for the master of lies.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Devils Advocaat
Point taken :)
So perhaps I should ask the ASI when he is going to answer the
challenges set forth in that list?
>
> --
> Bob.