Debunking ICONS of Evolutionism

[Loirbaj]

www.answersingenesis.org/
For many years, evolutionists spun stories
in textbooks saying that 'Darwin's finches showed
evolution'. In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
that they are all interfertile, and the supposed
'evolution' is merely a cyclical beak size change
due to first drought then wet then drought. We
can thank Dr.Walls as well for helping to debunk
now their treasured 'evolving Finches' claim

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT), Loirbaj
<Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Creationists are enemies of science. They are shameful frauds who mock
the God they claim to worship. Creationism is immoral.

[VoiceOfReason]

On Sep 11, 12:23 pm, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> www.answersingenesis.org/

> In fact, Creation Scientists have shown

"Creation Scientist" is an oxymoron.

[Loirbaj]

Free Lunch...for millionth iteration,
Your God is EVIL and He hates you...

BroilJAB notes,
This is the identical blather of
DevilsAdvocaat and Dave Oldredge.
Their constant bleat is identical.
If, as a joke, you want to pretend to
be Freepers, use these identical
'stock replies' each time:

Your religion is wicked, God is evil.
Please explain yourself?
Christianity is evil, your God is vile.

[Davej]

On Sep 11, 10:23 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> [...] We can thank Dr.Walls as well for helping

> to debunk now their treasured 'evolving Finches' claim

"Dr. Walls?" Are you really a complete idiot?

[Don Martin]

Did your really have to ask?

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:14:21 -0400, Don Martin
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:50:56 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 11, 10:23 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>> [...] We can thank Dr.Walls as well for helping
>>> to debunk now their treasured 'evolving Finches' claim
>>
>>"Dr. Walls?" Are you really a complete idiot?
>
>Did your really have to ask?

Were those rhetorical questions?

[Virgil]

In article
<625c2fd0-ae14-4109...@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> www.answersingenesis.org/
> For many years, evolutionists spun stories
> in textbooks saying that 'Darwin's finches showed
> evolution'.

They certainly show the effects of natural selection, having become
modified to be better adapted to using their food sources.
--

[Virgil]

In article
<54db70c2-fb50-4c17...@i21g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

>
> Your religion is wicked, God is evil.

> Christianity is evil, your God is vile.

Christianity itself is not particularly evil, Liarbaj, but some
corruptions of it, like your creationism, are distinctly evil.
--

[us4...@att.net]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT), Loirbaj

Bottom line.... Evolutionists are extreme religious fanatics.

They fanatically believe by "faith" that over billions upon
billions of untold years that "matter" (which came from nowhere)
randomly assembled itself into what we now know as "the universe"
with all of it's galaxies, solar systems, planets etc. All
without there being any Creator God.

"And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every
tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down,
and cast into the fire." John the Baptist (Luke 3:9)

Pagans never cease to amaze me. Especially now when they
themselves do not even realize that they are indeed.... PAGANS.
Idol worshippers of various religious forms etc. etc. Generation
"Ipad". Worshippers of technology and of the deviant Sock
Puppets.

U4Z

[us4...@att.net]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Loirbaj
<Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

>Free Lunch...for millionth iteration,
>Your God is EVIL and He hates you...
>
>BroilJAB notes,
>This is the identical blather of
>DevilsAdvocaat and Dave Oldredge.
>Their constant bleat is identical.

I have sent them all to killfile only to note that they seemed to
have morphed into other screen names which I have yet to
killfile.

They all say the same thing, and tell the same lies, curse, rant
etc. in similar fashion.

Also, this phenomenon seems to be limited to alt.atheism alone.
None of my other NG's show such trickery, deception, and/or
dishonesty.

Why do deviants all seem to flock to alt.atheism?

U4Z

[Davej]

On Sep 11, 5:28 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> [...]

> Bottom line.... Evolutionists are extreme religious fanatics.
>
> They fanatically believe by "faith" that over billions upon
> billions of untold years that "matter" (which came from
> nowhere) randomly assembled itself into what we now
> know as "the universe" with all of it's galaxies, solar
> systems, planets etc. All without there being any Creator

> God. [...]

We'll put this up against your God who came from nowhere, for whom
there is no evidence.

[us4...@att.net]

Moron. Most of the top 100 scientists were either Jewish or
Christian.

Morons follow the Sock-Puppet carpetbaggers of Al Gore.

"The list below is from the book The Scientific 100: A Ranking of
the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press
(2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons."

1 Isaac Newton Anglican (Arianism of the Primitive Church)
2 Albert Einstein Twentieth-Century Science Jewish
3 Neils Bohr the Atom Jewish Lutheran
4 Charles Darwin Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
5 Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease Catholic
6 Sigmund Freud Jewish; Atheist;
7 Galileo Galilei the New Science Catholic
8 Antoine Lavoisier the Revolution in Chemistry Catholic
9 Johannes Kepler Lutheran
10 Nicolaus Copernicus Catholic (priest)
11 Michael Faraday Sandemanian
12 James Clerk Maxwell Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
13 Claude Bernard the Founding of Modern Physiology
14 Franz Boas Modern Anthropology Jewish
15 Werner Heisenberg Quantum Theory Lutheran
16 Linus Pauling Twentieth-Century Chemistry Lutheran
17 Rudolf Virchow the Cell Doctrine
18 Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic
19 Ernest Rutherford the Structure of the Atom
20 Paul Dirac Quantum Electrodynamics
21 Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic
22 Tycho Brahe the New Astronomy Lutheran
23 Comte de Buffon l'Histoire Naturelle
24 Ludwig Boltzmann Thermodynamics
25 Max Planck the Quanta Protestant
26 Marie Curie Radioactivity Catholic (lapsed)
27 William Herschel the Discovery of the Heavens Jewish
28 Charles Lyell Modern Geology
29 Pierre Simon de Laplace atheist
30 Edwin Hubble the Modern Telescope
31 Joseph J. Thomson the Discovery of the Electron
32 Max Born Quantum Mechanics Jewish Lutheran
33 Francis Crick Molecular Biology atheist
34 Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics Catholic
35 Leonard Euler Eighteenth-Century Mathematics Calvinist
36 Justus Liebig Nineteenth-Century Chemistry
37 Arthur Eddington Modern Astronomy Quaker
38 William Harvey Anglican (nominal)
39 Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy Catholic
40 Christiaan Huygens Wave Theory of Light Calvinist
41 Carl Gauss Mathematical Genius Lutheran
42 Albrecht von Haller Eighteenth-Century Medicine
43 August Kekule Chemical Structure
44 Robert Koch Bacteriology
45 Murray Gell-Mann the Eightfold Way Jewish
46 Emil Fischer Organic Chemistry
47 Dmitri Mendeleev the Periodic Table of Elements
48 Sheldon Glashow the Discovery of Charm Jewish
49 James Watson the Structure of DNA atheist
50 John Bardeen Superconductivity
51 John von Neumann the Modern Computer Jewish Catholic
52 Richard Feynman Quantum Electrodynamics Jewish
53 Alfred Wegener Continental Drift
54 Stephen Hawking Quantum Cosmology atheist
55 Anton van Leeuwenhoek Microscope Dutch Reformed
56 Max von Laue X-ray Crystallography
57 Gustav Kirchhoff Spectroscopy
58 Hans Bethe the Energy of the Sun Jewish
59 Euclid Mathematics Platonism / Greek philosophy
60 Gregor Mendel GeneticsCatholic (Augustinian monk)
61 Heike Kamerlingh Onnes Superconductivity
62 Thomas Hunt Morgan Theory of Heredity
63 Hermann von Helmholtz the Rise of German Science
64 Paul Ehrlich Chemotherapy Jewish
65 Ernst Mayr Evolutionary Theory atheist
66 Charles Sherrington Neurophysiology
67 Theodosius Dobzhansky Modern Synthesis Russian Orthodox
68 Max Delbruck the Bacteriophage
69 Jean Baptiste Lamarck the Foundations of Biology
70 William Bayliss Modern Physiology
71 Noam Chomsky Linguistics Jewish atheist
72 Frederick Sanger the Genetic Code
73 Lucretius Scientific Thinking Epicurean; atheist
74 John Dalton the Theory of the Atom Quaker
75 Louis Victor de Broglie Wave/Particle Duality
76 Carl Linnaeus Binomial Nomenclature Christianity
77 Jean Piaget Child Development
78 George Gaylord Simpson the Tempo of Evolution
79 Claude Levi-Strauss Structural Anthropology Jewish
80 Lynn Margulis Symbiosis Theory Jewish
81 Karl Landsteiner the Blood Groups Jewish
82 Konrad Lorenz Ethology
83 Edward O. Wilson Sociobiology
84 Frederick Gowland Hopkins Vitamins
85 Gertrude Belle Elion Pharmacology
86 Hans Selye the Stress Concept
87 J. Robert Oppenheimer the Atomic Era Jewish
88 Edward Teller the Bomb Jewish
89 Willard Libby Radioactive Dating
90 Ernst Haeckel the Biogenetic Principle
91 Jonas Salk Vaccination Jewish
92 Emil Kraepelin Twentieth-Century Psychiatry
93 Trofim Lysenko Soviet Genetics Russian Orthodox
94 Francis Galton Eugenics
95 Alfred Binet the I.Q. Test
96 Alfred Kinsey Human Sexuality atheist
97 Alexander Fleming Penicillin Catholic
98 B. F. Skinner Behaviorism atheist
99 Wilhelm Wundt the Founding of Psychology atheist
100 Archimedes Beginning of Science Greek philosophy

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

U4Z

[Budikka666]

Here is a list of 4,950 references to "evolution" and "Darwin's
finches" in Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution+%22darwin%27s+finches%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

Now where is your science supporting your claim above?

Or you can RUN AWAY as you've done almost FORTY times from us.

Budikka

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:13:56 -0700, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>

wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:14:21 -0400, Don Martin
><drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:50:56 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 11, 10:23 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>>> [...] We can thank Dr.Walls as well for helping
>>>> to debunk now their treasured 'evolving Finches' claim
>>>
>>>"Dr. Walls?" Are you really a complete idiot?
>>
>>Did your really have to ask?
>
>Were those rhetorical questions?

Can't you guess?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Loirbaj
<Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

I have no use for religion or gods because they were invented by mankind
to enslave other men. Do you not wonder why the former slave states are
for the most part the ones with the most pernicious religious teachings?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:45:14 -0500, us4...@att.net wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

We atheists do not know, but since you are one of those flocking here,
maybe you can tell us? What makes you spout lies here?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:34:57 -0500, us4...@att.net wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:24:43 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason

><papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 11, 12:23�pm, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>> www.answersingenesis.org/
>>
>>> In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
>>
>>"Creation Scientist" is an oxymoron.
>
>Moron. Most of the top 100 scientists were either Jewish or
>Christian.
>
>Morons follow the Sock-Puppet carpetbaggers of Al Gore.
>
>"The list below is from the book The Scientific 100: A Ranking of
>the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press
>(2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons."

[dishonest list created by creationist liar deleted]

>http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

Why do you repeat this thoroughly debunked list? What good does it do
you to tell such blatant lies?

[VoiceOfReason]

us4z...@att.net wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:24:43 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 11, 12:23�pm, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> >> www.answersingenesis.org/
> >
> >> In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
> >
> >"Creation Scientist" is an oxymoron.
>
> Moron. Most of the top 100 scientists were either Jewish or
> Christian.

Not creationists.

Did you even read the post you're responding to?

> Morons follow the Sock-Puppet carpetbaggers of Al Gore.

Sock-Puppet carpetbaggers? Seriously, were you drunk when you wrote
that?

> "The list below is from the book The Scientific 100: A Ranking of
> the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press
> (2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons."

Not one of which is a "creation scientist." Creationists are the ones
who fear and reject science.

[Mitchell Holman]

us4...@att.net wrote in news:cmdq6794298vfq9fa...@4ax.com:

> Why do deviants all seem to flock to alt.atheism?

Is that what bring YOU here?

[us4...@att.net]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:19 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason

<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:

>
>
>us4z...@att.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:24:43 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>

>> >On Sep 11, 12:23?pm, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> >> www.answersingenesis.org/
>> >
>> >> In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
>> >
>> >"Creation Scientist" is an oxymoron.
>>
>> Moron. Most of the top 100 scientists were either Jewish or
>> Christian.
>
>Not creationists.

Lie. Name me 1 true Christian or Jew who is not a Creationist.

U4Z

[Mike Lovell]

On 2011-09-12, us4...@att.net <us4...@att.net> wrote:
> Lie. Name me 1 true Christian or Jew who is not a Creationist.

There's millions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Acceptance

You're not a true Christian yourself. You don't love your neighbour,
you lie all the time and you're basically not a very nice person.

--
Mike

Catawimp's defeat: slrnj6j6jr.3i...@usenet.home.b0h0.com
Why is he afraid of replying to this post in full?

[John Baker]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:19:45 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

He's getting attention, and that's what trolls want.

[Loirbaj]

Baker said,
Look over THERE...HE 'is a troll'.

BroilJAB said,
And Baker is the same kook who runs the
'Virgil' and dozens of other clone Nyms. No
one even bothers to reply to his crap.

[VoiceOfReason]

MOST Christians and Jews are not creationists. Most of them do not
need to deny the facts of science. It is only the creationism
cultists who reject science and lie to support their perverse beliefs.

[Mike Painter]

On 9/11/2011 3:28 PM, us4...@att.net wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT), Loirbaj
> <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> www.answersingenesis.org/
>> For many years, evolutionists spun stories
>> in textbooks saying that 'Darwin's finches showed
>> evolution'. In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
>> that they are all interfertile, and the supposed
>> 'evolution' is merely a cyclical beak size change
>> due to first drought then wet then drought. We
>> can thank Dr.Walls as well for helping to debunk
>> now their treasured 'evolving Finches' claim
> Bottom line.... Evolutionists are extreme religious fanatics.
>
> They fanatically believe by "faith" that over billions upon
> billions of untold years that "matter" (which came from nowhere)
> randomly assembled itself into what we now know as "the universe"
> with all of it's galaxies, solar systems, planets etc. All
> without there being any Creator God.

Perhaps you have trouble with numbers larger than ten and count them as
"untold", we don't.
And if you are going to talk about evolution, why not do so.

> "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every
> tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down,
> and cast into the fire." John the Baptist (Luke 3:9)
>
> Pagans never cease to amaze me. Especially now when they
> themselves do not even realize that they are indeed.... PAGANS.
> Idol worshippers of various religious forms etc. etc. Generation
> "Ipad". Worshippers of technology and of the deviant Sock
> Puppets.
>

First we are atheists, then we are pagans. Make up your mind.

[Budikka666]

I see your omnipotent god *failed* you again, and you RAN, thereby
proving to everyone on Usenet that there's nothing behind you but a
stinking great LIE.

Keep running chicken-shit. I'll add this example of your chronic
cowardice to the ever-growing list.

I will take you to FIFTY, scumwad - that's a cast-iron guarantee.

Budikka

[us4...@att.net]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:

>MOST Christians and Jews are not creationists.

All true Christians and Jews are creationists.

U4Z

[us4...@att.net]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:58:23 -0700 (PDT), Loirbaj
<Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

>www.answersingenesis.org/
>For many years, evolutionists spun stories
>in textbooks saying that 'Darwin's finches showed
>evolution'. In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
>that they are all interfertile, and the supposed
>'evolution' is merely a cyclical beak size change
>due to first drought then wet then drought.

Atheists could care less about "facts".

They have dammed us all to monkeyhood no matter what.

To the atheist we are all worse than sinners..... we are all sons
of apes! Religion gone amuck. The only way to redemption in their
religion is to agree with them that yes..... my mother was a
monkey and my father was an ape. Poor me! Save me Uncle Sam!

Just think what it would be like if we did not have the right to
bear arms. OMG! It would all have been over years ago.

Never would we have kicked the entire world's ass just a few
short years after PEARL HARBOUR.

911. I wonder. Will we still be worshipping that day another 10
years from now or will we ever decide to kick ass once again?

I say nuke 'em.

Nuke Mecca if/when camel jockeys ever again happen to decide to
attack us on our own soil.

Bring our men back from Afghanistan and Iraq. Now. Forget "nation
building" in dune coon nations.

If/when they step over the line..... nuke 'em 'till they glow.

Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The lesson is clear. They can
indeed be made to understand.

U4Z

[Mike Lovell]

On 2011-09-13, us4...@att.net <us4...@att.net> wrote:
> Atheists could care less about "facts".

We do, that's why we're atheists.

> They have dammed us all to monkeyhood no matter what.

Just because your find the truth embarrassing or offensive doesn't make
it less true.

Your letting emotions rule your judgement, you'd make a terrible
scientist.

> To the atheist we are all worse than sinners..... we are all sons
> of apes!

How is being the ancestors of lower mammals a sin? It's not like we did
anything to make it happen.

> Religion gone amuck.

Yes, it has.

> The only way to redemption in their
> religion is to agree with them that yes..... my mother was a
> monkey and my father was an ape. Poor me! Save me Uncle Sam!

Nobody says that, you're being idiotic, again.

> Just think what it would be like if we did not have the right to
> bear arms. OMG! It would all have been over years ago.

Most people don't have this right, there are Christians and theists
outside the US you know ;-)

> Never would we have kicked the entire world's ass just a few
> short years after PEARL HARBOUR.

I don't recall you kicking the entire worlds ass, when was this?

> I say nuke 'em.

Turn the other cheek? :-)

You would kill hundreds of thousands of people in a nuclear strike???

You are an evil-evil person. The lowest of the low. This is why you
should be weary of theists, they are mass-murderers if they think God is
on their side.

> Nuke Mecca if/when camel jockeys ever again happen to decide to
> attack us on our own soil.

Evil person, it's a shame there is no hell because people like you
deserve it.

[JohnN]

On Sep 11, 12:23 pm, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> www.answersingenesis.org/
> For many years, evolutionists spun stories
> in textbooks saying that 'Darwin's finches showed
> evolution'. In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
> that they are all interfertile, and the supposed
> 'evolution' is merely a cyclical beak size change

> due to first drought then wet then drought. We
> can thank Dr.Walls as well for helping to debunk
> now their treasured 'evolving Finches' claim

Jabbers, do post the scientific evidence Answersingenesis offers for
creationism. People have been waiting for over 150 years for it.

JohnN

[JohnN]

On Sep 11, 8:34 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:24:43 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>

Neils Bohr the Atom Jewish Lutheran ???
What is a Jewish Lutheran, considering how Luther hated the Jews?

Any way, your list is interesting but lacks any real meaning without
how each person on it used religion to parse their particular science.
Where did Catholicism come into play when Dr Flemming was perfecting
penicillin? How did Mendel calculate God into his mathematics of
genetics?

JohnN

[VoiceOfReason]

On Sep 12, 8:50 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>

> <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >MOST Christians and Jews are not creationists.  
>
> All true Christians and Jews are creationists.
>
> U4Z

Look up the logical fallacy "No true Scotsman" and try to learn
something.

[us4...@att.net]

Run downtown and get me a vanilla shake.

U4Z

[VoiceOfReason]

On Sep 13, 1:55 am, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:34:34 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>

> <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 12, 8:50 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>
> >> <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >> >MOST Christians and Jews are not creationists.
>
> >> All true Christians and Jews are creationists.
>
> >> U4Z
>
> >Look up the logical fallacy "No true Scotsman" and try to learn
> >something.
>
> Run downtown and get me a vanilla shake.
>
> U4Z

It doesn't surprise me that you choose to remain ignorant.

[MarkA]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:23:36 -0700, Loirbaj wrote:

> www.answersingenesis.org/
> For many years, evolutionists spun stories in textbooks saying that
> 'Darwin's finches showed evolution'. In fact, Creation Scientists have
> shown that they are all interfertile, and the supposed 'evolution' is
> merely a cyclical beak size change due to first drought then wet then
> drought. We can thank Dr.Walls as well for helping to debunk now their
> treasured 'evolving Finches' claim

Whether or not Darwin's finches are separate species or not is irrelevant.
They gave him the idea that, from a single parent population, several
distinct sub-populations could arise due to different selection pressures
on different islands. The idea of random variations coupled with natural
selection was the breakthrough that made him famous.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Jeanne Douglas]

On Sep 12, 6:31 pm, us4z...@att.net wrote:

> I say nuke 'em.
>
> Nuke Mecca if/when camel jockeys ever again happen to decide to
> attack us on our own soil.

Good idea. Turn the oil radioactive so we're finally FORCED to fund
alternate energy sources.

JD

[Jeanne Douglas]

us4z...@att.net wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:58:23 -0700 (PDT), Loirbaj
> <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> >www.answersingenesis.org/
> >For many years, evolutionists spun stories
> >in textbooks saying that 'Darwin's finches showed
> >evolution'. In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
> >that they are all interfertile, and the supposed
> >'evolution' is merely a cyclical beak size change
> >due to first drought then wet then drought.
>
> Atheists could care less about "facts".
>
> They have dammed us all to monkeyhood no matter what.
>
> To the atheist we are all worse than sinners..... we are all sons
> of apes!

Why do you find that so objectionable?

I find the connectedness to all life on earth a beautiful thing.

JD

[Loirbaj]

www.answersingenesis.org/
For many years, evolutionists spun stories
in textbooks saying that 'Darwin's finches showed
evolution'. In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
that they are all interfertile, and the supposed
'evolution' is merely a cyclical beak size change
due to first drought then wet then drought. We

can thank Dr.Wells as well for helping to debunk

[Jeanne Douglas]

Why are you lying?

JD

[Virgil]

In article
<fcecb856-c5a2-40b7...@b28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> www.answersingenesis.org/
> For many years, evolutionists spun stories
> in textbooks saying that 'Darwin's finches showed
> evolution'.

They do show some of the aspects of Natural Selection, as they have
become modified to better suit their environments, even if they have not
yet lost interfertility with other finches.

> In fact, Creation Scientists have shown
> that they are all interfertile, and the supposed
> 'evolution' is merely a cyclical beak size change
> due to first drought then wet then drought.

Any modifications better to fit a new environment, including the
modifications you admit, is evidence of Natural Selection.

Note that there can be considerable such modification without loss of
interfertility.


Consider, for example ring species.

Ring species
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring
populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related
populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in
the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there
is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. Such
non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may
co-exist in the same region thus closing a "ring".
Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they
illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge,
and are special because they represent in living populations what
normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations
and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct.
Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the
spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time
dimension."[1]
Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem,
for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species.
After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate
species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of
the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding
connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as
two distinct species.
Formally, the issue is that interfertile "able to interbreed" is not a
transitive relation ­ if A can breed with B, and B can breed with C, it
does not follow that A can breed with C ­ and thus does not define an
equivalence relation. A ring species is a species that exhibits a
counterexample to transitivity.[2]
--

[Loirbaj]

www.answersingenesis.org/
For many years, evolutionists spun stories

in textbooks of Walking Whales. Now, even
the fossil discoverers admit that was bogus.
We can thank Dr.Wells for helping to debunk
now their treasured 'evolving Whales' claims.

[Jeanne Douglas]

On Sep 19, 2:05 pm, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> www.answersingenesis.org/
> For many years, evolutionists spun stories
> in textbooks of Walking Whales.

That sounds fun. Please post an URL so I can read these stories.

JD

[Virgil]

In article
<cb76a3a8-1783-4d22...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> www.answersingenesis.org/
> For many years, evolutionists spun stories
> in textbooks of Walking Whales.

See how "answersingenesis" lies!

Distant and non-whale ancestors of whales did walk on land,
but only lying creationsts claim that whales walk.
--

[Loirbaj]

www.answersingenesis.org/
For many years, evolutionists spun stories

in textbooks of Walking Whales. Now, even
the fossil discoverers admit that was bogus.
We can thank Dr.Wells for helping to debunk
now their treasured 'evolving Whales' claims.

Voice of Vomit said,
Whales DID walk on land.

BroilJAB shook head

[Virgil]

In article
<94f563b6-101c-4a7e...@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:


> For many years, creationist urls spun stories
> of Walking Whales.

But they are lies, like so many of bibliolator's tales.

The problem is that all the hard evidence is on the side of science,
including Evolution, and those that oppose that science, including those
who oppose evolution, don't have any hard evidence to support them.

ALL the available objective physical evidence is compatible with
Evolution but is almost all incompatible with either the claims of
Bibiolators or Xian fundamentalism.

And no amount of screaming will overcome that fact.


bib·li·ol·a·try  (bbl-l-tr)
n.
1. Excessive adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
--

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:19:30 -0600, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>In article
><94f563b6-101c-4a7e...@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
>
>> For many years, creationist urls spun stories
>> of Walking Whales.
>
>But they are lies, like so many of bibliolator's tales.
>
>The problem is that all the hard evidence is on the side of science,
>including Evolution, and those that oppose that science, including those
>who oppose evolution, don't have any hard evidence to support them.

Evolution predicted that fossil forms would be found with both whale
and land mammal features. Including real legs because today's whales
have a pelvis and vestigial leg bones inside their bodies.

And these intermediates were found. The first discovery AFAIR was
called Ambulocetus - literally "walking whale" so it's easy to
remember.

What does this imbecile imagine the pelvis and vestigial legs
indicate?

[Loirbaj]

I can see no difficulty in a race of
bears being rendered, by natural selection, more
and more aquatic in their structure and habits,
with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was
produced as monstrous as a whale.
--gullible Darwin

Some atheists today still make claims of
'man has a tail' or 'human embryo's have
gills' or 'whales have legs'. These folks have
not been told yet that those claims are long
since abandoned. Just as the Rhodocetus
fossil now abandoned and even Dr.Gingerich
admitting NO tail fluke, no flippers. And even
evolution propaganda magazines, in their
Q&A sections, quietly acknowledge these
claims of tails and gills are wishfullfillment.

[VoiceOfReason]

Loirbaj wrote:

> Some atheists today still make claims of
> 'man has a tail'

Your lies are easily disproven:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail#Human_tails

[Loirbaj]

I can see no difficulty in a race of
bears being rendered, by natural selection, more
and more aquatic in their structure and habits,
with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was
produced as monstrous as a whale.
--gullible Darwin

This is only one of thousands of ludicrous
claims Darwin made in his comic book
'science' texts.

[Virgil]

In article
<91d06d8e-32cb-4336...@j1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> I can see no difficulty in a race of
> bears being rendered, by natural selection, more
> and more aquatic in their structure and habits,
> with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was
> produced as monstrous as a whale.

> --Darwin
Something like that actually happened, but not necessarily to bears.

>
> Some atheists today still make claims of
> 'man has a tail' or 'human embryo's have
> gills' or 'whales have legs'.

Those people are creationists, not atheists.


Atheists who know a bit about Evolution might say that human embryos at
one point in their development have little tails and at another point
have the precursors of gills, and that whales embryos have the
precursors of legs, none of which fully develop.

It is only those whose religion claims are threatened by the facts of
ascience who scream against evolution.

Almost all Christians accept Evolution with no problems, and those
claiming to be Christian who reject Evolution are really mere bible
worshippers, not true Christians.
--

[Jeanne Douglas]

So what?

JD

[Virgil]

In article
<964852b1-ac09-472c...@z5g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> I can see no difficulty in a race of
> bears being rendered, by natural selection, more
> and more aquatic in their structure and habits,
> with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was
> produced as monstrous as a whale.

says Liarbaj

But it wasn't necessarily a bear, but was a mammal, whose descendants
are those whales.
--

[default]

Really. Massive bodies of blubber walking the land. I'd pay to see
that.

[default]

That must of been some "textbooks" they had in your bible college.