Fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals?
Joseki
Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal
sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being
similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others
are small.
A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those
creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are
often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years.
Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils,
zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the
fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their
possible connection through ancestry and descent.
Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm
S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small,
“possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that
existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no
way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms
were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might
have been to each other.”
Justin Tyme
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7795d3ac-0994-45fc...@26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
Snip plagiarized Watchtower literature. Why don't you post the whole CD
here giving credit to the authors instead of pretending you wrote all this
information?
ed wolf
These are, of course, very well known and undisputed facts. No one in
his right mind claims Archeopterix personally laid the eggs that
where
there before chicken, and then got fossilized. Even with well
documented
lines like the horse evolution the fossils are no family tree. Nothing
more
in your quote.You are refuting kindergarten books on evolution, not
those
for the grownups. Try reading some.
ed
Moses Buggs: I’m on a mission from God!
Haggard: Tell him you failed! (shoots Buggs)
(from "Paul")
Olrik
> Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
Please provide a coherent and scientific explanation for the fossil
record, instead of just berating the theory of evolution.
After all, if that theory is wrong, you must have some sort of an idea
for an alternative theory.
Thanks!
Justin Tyme
"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ipg2k9$dvf$2...@dont-email.me...
His religion, the Jehovah's Witnesses, teach that their god Jehovah created
the universe and all that's in it over a long period of time. Not just a
literal week. He's posting from ARJW. They believe there can be no
alternative but the biblical account. They believe Jesus was already with
Jehovah when the creation (Big Bang?) occurred.
AllSeeing-I
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Excuse me. Watchtower literature is freely given and therefore cannot
be plagiarized. Neither do the articles attribute a specific writter.
Instead of whinning, why not address the information?
Michael Bachmann
wrote:
> Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
Are you telling me you actually believe the story of Adam & Eve? You
would have to be an imbecile or 7 year old child to believe such a tale.
I bet you also believe that Jesus walked on water and was risen from the
dead after three days in a tomb?
2000 years ago people believed such tales because they were uneducated,
illiterate and ignorant of science and how the human body works. To
believe such tails today with the ability to read and write shows you to
be very naive, gullible and ignorant.
BTW, Moses never existed either.
wf3h
plagiarism doesnt mean that the work you steal from isnt freely given
it means you present information as something you yourself invented.
and since creationists LIE about their information, how does one
address quotes that are always taken out of context, as s. j. gould
stated? he once wrote an essay on how creationists quote mine his
work to 'prove' he said evoltuion is a lie
you guys lie. you lie in the name of god. it's part of your religion.
Devils Advocaat
Plagarizing; to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as
one's own.
Does the definition require "the ideas or words of another" to be in a
specific form?
No it does not.
You loose again maddy.
AllSeeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
ha!.. i have not lost a first time.
Pasting from the watchtower is hardly the work of a plagarist
you guys cRAck mE uP with your hair-brained comments :-)
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
looky it carol the kook... with a another nym...
Joseki
She can't... she is a kook and does waht kook do.. call information to
herself... Now she has an imaginary friend Elder Bob,
Joseki
The quotes mention are from scientists.. beside 99% of the people here
are at kindergarten level.
Joseki
An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil
record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames
have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Consider the implications
of that illustration. National Geographic, “Fossil Evidence,”
November 2004, p. 25.
Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally
had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You
might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames
you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the
other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to
assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of
the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the
order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more
reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?
How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the
fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the
vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that
species change very little over time. Why the silence about such
important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently
paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary
change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the
contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms
of accepted evolutionary ideas.”
What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to
place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-
supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because
doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?
Joseki
wrote:
>
> BTW, Moses never existed either.
Neither did Alexander the great... come on a kid that conquer half of
the world.. really please...
wf3h
<jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the
>fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the
>vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that
>species change very little over time. Why the silence about such
>important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently
>paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary
>change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the
>contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms
>of accepted evolutionary ideas.”
so even if we GRANT his view...that the fossils show little change
over time
he ADMITS the fossils DO show change over time
which is how evolution is DEFINED. so he ADMITS evolution is SEEN in
the fossil record
QED
>What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to
>place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-
>supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because
>doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?
no one places fossils in an order except time itself. you creationsits
simply deny evidence
which is why creationism is dead
Joseki
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 04:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Joseki
>
>
> >How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the
> >fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the
> >vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that
> >species change very little over time. Why the silence about such
> >important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently
> >paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary
> >change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the
> >contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms
> >of accepted evolutionary ideas.”
>
> so even if we GRANT his view...that the fossils show little change
> over time
>
> he ADMITS the fossils DO show change over time
>
> which is how evolution is DEFINED. so he ADMITS evolution is SEEN in
> the fossil record
>
And your point? ah yes... you are delusioned one that believed me to
be a creationist.
Joseki
>
>
> which is why creationism is dead
yup... Not that you can identify a creationist from a hole in the....
well you know... if I said Ground.. you wouldn't get it neither.
There are many people, though, who hesitate to investigate the Bible
because they are disillusioned with religion. They look at organized
religion and see hypocrisy, corruption, warmongering. But is it fair
to judge the Bible by the behavior of some who claim to represent it?
Many humane and sincere scientists have been horrified by the way that
some violent bigots have used the evolution theory to support their
racist aims. Would it be fair to judge the theory of evolution on that
basis? Surely it is better to investigate the theory’s claims and
compare them with the available evidence.
Elijah
prove that Adam (man) did not wake up in 4025bc.
I truly wouldnt even care if in 72 hours an animal evolved
thru all those stages in a CREATION process....
Adam woke up in 4025bc and so the topic of the animals
is totally uneffecting any human history.
It is the exact same distraction of arguing the sun and moon
as 144 hours (6 days) before Adam. It matters not
to the fact one man awoke and became a bad father.
Now here is a more important issue. The life of our father
shed his blood to save not the whole world but only 144,000.
This doesnt mean his blood isnt worth the whole world, nor
does it mean he cant become Adam (one father of the whole world).
But Adam was not the whole world without Eve. His rib was taken
to create a womb to make that world, and the same with Jesus
who is given a wife from his own rib. Unless the wife proves to
replace
Eve as Jesus replaced Adam, there will be no future humans on Earth.
The wife is the Lamb who returns in our century and she too must shed
her blood.
That is why Elijah returns as the only man on earth who is the
groomsman
to bring her to him being the only one who says she is the Lamb
behold she takes away all sin. Repent. Without her all will die.
Because
she takes the hands of those in Sodom and drags them outside the city
saying head to the mountains or die. And like Jesus and like angels
she can do this for 40 days though slaughtered.
The whole world has seen her in the flesh, and now it will be only
the
surviving world
that sees she has risen complete in the spirit.
Judas is back, he betrays her. Peter is back, he says our Queen does
not need to die.
She is deserted as she gathers at the probability that Satan can and
will
inspire the slaughter to make that number fail.
Without the COMPLETE bride there will be no great crowd of survivors,
And with no survivors there will be no resurrection of flesh, because
the debt
from father to son thru mother must travel the path from first to
last
that it cannot
be said Jehovah raised anyone without christ to christ to christ as
the christ grows.
At the end of 1000 years it will be said no one came to life without
a
christ,
not even those who survived thru the blood of the Lamb. It is her
time to weep
because if Jehovah has a spirit, then SHE WILL SEE THIS, SHE MUST SEE
THIS,
IT IS THE BET BETWEEN JEHOVAH AND SATAN. The bride has no power
unless
she is complete.
Satan is pulled in by his own last chance to win and be left free
from
God's intervention
extending upon him and his followers.
wf3h
<jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 8:14 am, wf3h <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 04:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Joseki
>>
>> <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the
>> >fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the
>> >vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that
>> >species change very little over time. Why the silence about such
>> >important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently
>> >paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary
>> >change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the
>> >contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms
>> >of accepted evolutionary ideas.”
>>
>> so even if we GRANT his view...that the fossils show little change
>> over time
>>
>> he ADMITS the fossils DO show change over time
>>
>> which is how evolution is DEFINED. so he ADMITS evolution is SEEN in
>> the fossil record
>>
>
>And your point? ah yes... you are delusioned one that believed me to
>be a creationist.
you can run
but you can't hide. you religious fanatic always deny you're fanatics
in the same way the insane deny they're insane
wf3h
<jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 8:14 am, wf3h <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 04:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Joseki
>>
>
>>
>> which is why creationism is dead
>
>yup... Not that you can identify a creationist from a hole in
your head
the....
>well you know... if I said Ground.. you wouldn't get it neither.
>There are many people, though, who hesitate to investigate the Bible
>because they are disillusioned with religion.
here we go with the cliches...
They look at organized
>religion and see hypocrisy, corruption, warmongering.
we see that in the bible too, if you've read it. AND we see it held up
as the will of god. ephesians chapter six, verse five for example.
But is it fair
>to judge the Bible by the behavior of some who claim to represent it?
>Many humane and sincere scientists have been horrified by the way that
>some violent bigots have used the evolution theory to support their
>racist aims. Would it be fair to judge the theory of evolution on that
>basis? Surely it is better to investigate the theory’s claims and
>compare them with the available evidence.
except there's a problem with your analysis:
evolution is science. what people DO with it is irrelevant regarding
its truth
but the whole POINT to the bible is moraity. so if its morals are evil
(and they are, cf eph.) THEN the bible is false.
and it is
Justin Tyme
"AllSeeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:2d014a22-7e7a-4c13...@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Excuse ME, but they don't give their CDs away. A donation is REQUIRED!
Instead of whinning, why not address the information?
There was no whining involved. Try reading a message before replying.
Now, how about YOU post your irrefutable scientific evidence that any of
the 10,000 known gods exist. You've been avoiding the issue for years.
Justin Tyme
Then why isn't he giving credit to the WTS instead of passing it along as
his own thoughts? Do you even know what plagiarism means? And why are you
defending the most despised man on Usenet?
ed wolf
Excuse my English, it seems I was not quite clear on this:
Your quotes are scientifically perfectly alright and in no
opposition towards Darwin, the ToE or common, but
educated sense. Using them against the fact of evolution
as you seem to be trying is misunderstanding them. Only
the books for kids speak of the dinosaur "Dini" with the
smart little kid and the great future, or cute stuff like that.
In fact it is well known no fossil bone is the remnants of one
of our direct ancestors. It could be in some cases, but even
with a probable species it would be ludicrously improbable,
much more than finding a medieval grave someplace in
Europe and supposing its the bones of one of your ancestors.
You picked the wrong source, happens easily if you do not
really care about the subject. I wonder why do you bother at all?
ed
Conclusions invariably come after investigations, and not before.
Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together with
a group, to " find a solution" or "evolve an idea" without making
any investigation.
Mao Tse Tung 1930
Justin Tyme
This is proof of what a lying KoOk you are. You plagerize the WTS
literature and CDs trying to pass them off as your own. That's because you
haven't the intelligence to write anything on your own.
Justin Tyme
You failed to address the material you phlagerized.
Justin Tyme
The quotes mention are from scientists.. beside 99% of the people here
are at kindergarten level.
The WST is well known for quote mining. They've been doing it for many
years.
Justin Tyme
What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to
place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-
supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because
doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?
Oh well...... that explains why you and your JW buddies believe in a
magical creation.
Justin Tyme
On Apr 30, 8:14 am, wf3h <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 04:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Joseki
>
> <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the
> >fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the
> >vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that
> >species change very little over time. Why the silence about such
> >important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently
> >paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary
> >change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the
> >contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms
> >of accepted evolutionary ideas.”
>
> so even if we GRANT his view...that the fossils show little change
> over time
>
> he ADMITS the fossils DO show change over time
>
> which is how evolution is DEFINED. so he ADMITS evolution is SEEN in
> the fossil record
>
And your point? ah yes... you are delusioned one that believed me to
be a creationist.
You're such a KoOk you always miss the point and have to ask what it is. As
the most despised man on Usenet Jabriol, you are indeed a lying Jehovah's
Witness creationist. You've been denying any other possibility since you
infested these NGs 15 years ago.
Justin Tyme
On Apr 30, 8:14 am, wf3h <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 04:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Joseki
>
>
> which is why creationism is dead
yup... Not that you can identify a creationist from a hole in the....
well you know... if I said Ground.. you wouldn't get it neither.
There are many people, though, who hesitate to investigate the Bible
because they are disillusioned with religion.
Investigate the bible for what? To learn how life came to be on the earth?
You recommend the bible yet claim you don't believe in creationism or that
there's even a God. You can't remember what you post from one day to the
next.
They look at organized
religion and see hypocrisy, corruption, warmongering.
Yep! Just like in the Watchtower Society, rulers of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
There's nothing buy hypocrisy, corruption and warmongering.
But is it fair
to judge the Bible by the behavior of some who claim to represent it?
Many humane and sincere scientists have been horrified by the way that
some violent bigots have used the evolution theory to support their
racist aims.
What racist aims? Oh, you mean your grandaughter's black father who you
rejected? Did you learn that at the KHs?
Would it be fair to judge the theory of evolution on that
basis? Surely it is better to investigate the theory’s claims and
compare them with the available evidence.
More plagerism from the new WTS CD.
Devils Advocaat
Gee your memory must have recall problems.
Remember what you thought trilobites were?
>
> Pasting from the watchtower is hardly the work of a plagarist
Publishing anything in the public domain as if it were your own and
without mentioning its original source is plagiarism.
Perhaps you need to invest in a decent dictionary.
Pepsi
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being
similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others
are small.
***** The "problems" are based on the lack of intelligence and education of
you - the claimant; not the science of evolution.
A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those
creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are
often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years.
Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils,
zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the
fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their
possible connection through ancestry and descent.
Source refferal? The vast majority of creationist claims against evolution
are outrgeously distorted, even including out-right lies.
Still it's nothingmore than the same old, lame, creationist fallacy:
There's "two much space (between the rungs of a ladder) to accept the fact
that THE LADDER EXISTS".
Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm
S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small,
“possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that
existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no
way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms
were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might
have been to each other.”
"Commenting on" means nothing.
It's what is printed, and supported, in scientific journals, that counts.
Gordon is a biologist - but with a very restricted interest that focuses
heavily on only certain living, species of fish.
Joseki
> "AllSeeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2d014a22-7e7a-4c13...@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 9:04 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7795d3ac-0994-45fc...@26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
> > Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
> > comparative size of the creatures placed in the
> > reptile-to-mammal..........
>
> > Snip plagiarized Watchtower literature. Why don't you post the whole CD
> > here giving credit to the authors instead of pretending you wrote all this
> > information?
>
> Excuse me. Watchtower literature is freely given and therefore cannot
> be plagiarized. Neither do the articles attribute a specific writter.
>
> Excuse ME, but they don't give their CDs away. A donation is REQUIRED!
>
Actually that is not true neither..but then again In Carol Adamo World
everything she writes must be an absolute truth
> Instead of whinning, why not address the information?
>
> There was no whining involved. Try reading a message before replying.
Your middle name is "Whine" And she couldn't address the information,
because she doesn't know the definition of "information"
Joseki
Not at all... the people reading what I posted make that assumption.
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0da2a8aa-f673-4dd2...@r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 1:23 am, AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 9:04 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:7795d3ac-0994-45fc...@26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
> > > Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
> > > comparative size of the creatures placed in the
> > > reptile-to-mammal..........
>
> > > Snip plagiarized Watchtower literature. Why don't you post the whole CD
> > > here giving credit to the authors instead of pretending you wrote all
> > > this
> > > information?
>
> > Excuse me. Watchtower literature is freely given and therefore cannot
> > be plagiarized. Neither do the articles attribute a specific writter.
>
> > Instead of whinning, why not address the information?
>
> She can't... she is a kook and does waht kook do.. call information to
> herself... Now she has an imaginary friend Elder Bob,
>
> This is proof of what a lying KoOk you are. You plagerize the WTS
> literature and CDs trying to pass them off as your own. That's because you
> haven't the intelligence to write anything on your own.
Yeah and because you say so... it must be true. uh huh,,
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And? you do that all the time...
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7795d3ac-0994-45fc...@26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
> Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
> comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal
> sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being
> similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others
> are small.
>
> ***** The "problems" are based on the lack of intelligence and education of
> you - the claimant; not the science of evolution.
>
> A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those
> creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are
> often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years.
> Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils,
> zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the
> fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their
> possible connection through ancestry and descent.
>
> Source refferal? The vast majority of creationist claims against evolution
> are outrgeously distorted, even including out-right lies.
>
Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.
> Still it's nothingmore than the same old, lame, creationist fallacy:
> There's "two much space (between the rungs of a ladder) to accept the fact
> that THE LADDER EXISTS".
>
> Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm
> S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small,
> “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that
> existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no
> way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms
> were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might
> have been to each other.”
>
> "Commenting on" means nothing.
maybe to you... But I've seen Michio Kaku on many things.. and it
means a lot to those are interested in his subjects. therefore for you
who really don't know, of course his comments means....Nothing.
> It's what is printed, and supported, in scientific journals, that counts.
> Gordon is a biologist - but with a very restricted interest that focuses
> heavily on only certain living, species of fish.
did you read the header of the subject...? I think Fish is part of the
discussion.
Olrik
> On Apr 30, 12:19 am, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-04-29 20:59, Joseki wrote:
>>
>>> Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
>>
>> record, instead of just berating the theory of evolution.
>>
>> After all, if that theory is wrong, you must have some sort of an idea
>> for an alternative theory.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil
> record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames
> have been lost on the cutting-room floor.” Consider the implications
> of that illustration. National Geographic, “Fossil Evidence,”
> November 2004, p. 25.
>
>
> Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally
> had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You
> might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames
> you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the
> other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to
> assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of
> the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the
> order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more
> reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?
>
> How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the
> fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the
> vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that
> species change very little over time. Why the silence about such
> important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently
> paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary
> change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the
> contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms
> of accepted evolutionary ideas.”
> place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-
> supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because
> doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?
I asked you if you had a scientific alternative to evolution theory. Thanks.
Justin Tyme
"Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:iphkga$bba$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0da2a8aa-f673-4dd2...@r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 1:23 am, AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 9:04 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:7795d3ac-0994-45fc...@26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
>> > Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
>> > comparative size of the creatures placed in the
>> > reptile-to-mammal..........
>>
>> > Snip plagiarized Watchtower literature. Why don't you post the whole CD
>> > here giving credit to the authors instead of pretending you wrote all
>> > this
>> > information?
>>
>> Excuse me. Watchtower literature is freely given and therefore cannot
>> be plagiarized. Neither do the articles attribute a specific writter.
>>
>> Instead of whinning, why not address the information?
>
Did you miss this part?
Justin Tyme
Of course it's true. When you can't think of something stupid to post on
these groups, you start the old copy and paste from the WTSs CDs. You've
done it over and over over the years.
Justin Tyme
On Apr 30, 2:23 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "AllSeeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2d014a22-7e7a-4c13...@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 9:04 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7795d3ac-0994-45fc...@26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
> > Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
> > comparative size of the creatures placed in the
> > reptile-to-mammal..........
>
> > Snip plagiarized Watchtower literature. Why don't you post the whole CD
> > here giving credit to the authors instead of pretending you wrote all
> > this
> > information?
>
> Excuse me. Watchtower literature is freely given and therefore cannot
> be plagiarized. Neither do the articles attribute a specific writter.
>
> Excuse ME, but they don't give their CDs away. A donation is REQUIRED!
>
Actually that is not true neither..but then again In Carol Adamo World
everything she writes must be an absolute truth
..............................
Excuse me Antonio L Santana, but that is no lie. The WTS only gives away
OUTDATED rags and CDs. A donation is requested for new material.
Snip you usual KoOk crapola.
Justin Tyme
.....................................................................
Not a chance unless it's irrelevant to my reply or the NSP requires most
quoted material be removed.
Accusing people unjustly seems to be part of your mental disorder.
Justin Tyme
All the regulars already know it. You've yet to come up with any alternative
other than the biblical one.
ed wolf
> On Apr 30, 2:30 pm, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Excuse my English, it seems I was not quite clear on this:
> > Your quotes are scientifically perfectly alright and in no
> > opposition towards Darwin, the ToE or common, but
> > educated sense. Using them against the fact of evolution
> > as you seem to be trying is misunderstanding them.
>
> Not at all... the people reading what I posted make that assumption.
Im not sure what exactly is your point. You seem to suggest if
it is unclear who someones great-grandfather was, that
suggests he did not have one?
It would be nice to explain what your post is all about.
ed
Joseki
space the final frontier
your welcome.
Joseki
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9a8538ae-8bbf-4746...@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 2:23 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "AllSeeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2d014a22-7e7a-4c13...@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 29, 9:04 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:7795d3ac-0994-45fc...@26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
> > > Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
> > > comparative size of the creatures placed in the
> > > reptile-to-mammal..........
>
> > > Snip plagiarized Watchtower literature. Why don't you post the whole CD
> > > here giving credit to the authors instead of pretending you wrote all
> > > this
> > > information?
>
> > Excuse me. Watchtower literature is freely given and therefore cannot
> > be plagiarized. Neither do the articles attribute a specific writter.
>
> > Excuse ME, but they don't give their CDs away. A donation is REQUIRED!
>
> Actually that is not true neither..but then again In Carol Adamo World
> everything she writes must be an absolute truth
> ..............................
> Excuse me Antonio L Santana, but that is no lie.
Most liars say they are not lying.
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:70aad287-57ee-4104...@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 2:31 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ab80a29a-9bab-4cb9...@s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The quotes mention are from scientists.. beside 99% of the people here
> > are at kindergarten level.
>
> > The WST is well known for quote mining. They've been doing it for many
> > years.
>
> And? you do that all the time...
> .....................................................................
>
> Not a chance unless it's irrelevant to my reply or the NSP requires most
> quoted material be removed.
>
> Accusing people unjustly seems to be part of your mental disorder.
sure....Yeah and because you say so... it must be true. uh huh,,
Joseki
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6ad36a1b-a04e-4e9a...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 2:36 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're such a KoOk you always miss the point and have to ask what it is.
> > As
> > the most despised man on Usenet Jabriol, you are indeed a lying Jehovah's
> > Witness creationist. You've been denying any other possibility since you
> > infested these NGs 15 years ago.
>
> Yeah and because you say so... it must be true. uh huh,,
>
> All the regulars already know it.
Yeah the regulars like:
Justin Tyme
Lack A. Wockki
Parrish *~
I.B. Olde
WF3h
which are all you.
Joseki
If I am White and someone said my great grandfather was Black. I would
want some hard fact, that this was the case, more so if this was the
first time.
ed wolf
> On May 1, 5:22 am, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Im not sure what exactly is your point. You seem to suggest if
> > it is unclear who someones great-grandfather was, that
> > suggests he did not have one?
> > It would be nice to explain what your post is all about.
> > ed
>
> If I am White and someone said my great grandfather was Black. I would
> want some hard fact, that this was the case, more so if this was the
> first time.
Do you suggest "whites " and "blacks" do not have any common
ancestors?
What exactly are you trying to communicate? I still do not know
why you posted that quote in the OP. Would it hurt to mor precise,
or send a link to whatever you want people to understand?
ed
Justin Tyme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All the regulars know it and ignore your WTS cut and paste creationist crap.
It's the newbies you snare in to your endless debate about
abiogenesis/creation/evolution. You deny being a creationist yet refuse to
offer any realistic alternative as to how life began on earth. Same old
same old. And now you're latest claim that JWs no longer believe Jehovah
created the universe and all in it is a SCREAM! Soon you'll be in all the
newbie's killfiles and you'll take another vacation for a few months. The
same old Jabriol cycle.
Justin Tyme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So THAT explains why you've denied lying all thes years. You admit to being
a liar. LOL!!! The truth comes out in the wash.
Joseki
> On 1 Mai, 14:52, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 5:22 am, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
> snip
> > > Im not sure what exactly is your point. You seem to suggest if
> > > it is unclear who someones great-grandfather was, that
> > > suggests he did not have one?
> > > It would be nice to explain what your post is all about.
> > > ed
>
> > If I am White and someone said my great grandfather was Black. I would
> > want some hard fact, that this was the case, more so if this was the
> > first time.
>
> Do you suggest "whites " and "blacks" do not have any common
> ancestors?
I see the point went over your head. you did not ask about a common
ancestor, you said my great grandfather.
Justin Tyme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All the regulars on these groups you infest like a roach in the projects
know it's true. Just because they left your cult and dared to speak out,
you've accused people, mostly women, of bestiality, whoredom, child abuse,
murder, pedophilia, performing abortions, rape, abuse of a corpse and more.
You even threatened Chris Dubose's grieving mother after you tormented her
mentally ill son who commit suicide. Let's not forget how you gloated and
talked about his head rolling off the RR tracks, sickening everyone who read
your depraved ravings after his death. It's all out there for anyone who
wants to look it up, like your children or KH buddies for example. Let's not
forget how you threatened those on ARJW, and you finally drove every JW and
ex-JW off ARJW.
Joseki
Sure you the "regulars" do.
> It's the newbies you snare in to your endless debate about
> abiogenesis/creation/evolution.
Snd it your Job to tell them about this...yup, unless you are the
"newbie" which mean more weird NYM's right?
> You deny being a creationist yet refuse to
> offer any realistic alternative as to how life began on earth.
I have.. you were not paying attention. Now go take some Ritalin so
you can focus.
> Same old
> same old. And now you're latest claim that JWs no longer believe Jehovah
> created the universe and all in it is a SCREAM!
Is it...? it seems your the only one screaming.
Soon you'll be in all the
> newbie's killfiles and you'll take another vacation for a few months. The
> same old Jabriol cycle.
sure... if you say so it must be true.
Joseki
I always tell the truth.. but you.. well... go ahead and denied you
not lying..
Justin Tyme
Yeah the regulars like:
which are all you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ghent and 149 other aliases or nyms were used by you in the past few years.
You even used other people's nyms and names costing you several ISPs and
NSPs. Only Google still allows you, like all the other crazies out there,
to post. You also admitted to having 150 gmail accounts at the time you
bragged how you wrecked rec.ponds. Now go get on your knees and beg your
God to forgive you before it's too late and you end up in that lake-o-fire
your cult always talks about.
Ghent
non-sequitur again... what a nut case,...
ed wolf
consider the point taken, flying over my head, too complex for me.
Anyway,please answer my repeated question: what is it you want
to say with that original post of yours.
ed
Buddythunder
> On Apr 30, 2:23 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 6:23 am, AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 29, 9:04 pm, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
> > > > Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
> > > > comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal..........
>
> > > > Snip plagiarized Watchtower literature. Why don't you post the whole CD
> > > > here giving credit to the authors instead of pretending you wrote all this
> > > > information?
>
> > > Excuse me. Watchtower literature is freely given and therefore cannot
> > > be plagiarized. Neither do the articles attribute a specific writter.
>
>
> > one's own.
>
> > Does the definition require "the ideas or words of another" to be in a
> > specific form?
>
> > No it does not.
>
> > You loose again maddy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ha!.. i have not lost a first time.
>
> Pasting from the watchtower is hardly the work of a plagarist
>
> you guys cRAck mE uP with your hair-brained comments :-)
Learn basic English. Then basic science. Then the Dunning-Kruger
effect.
Justin Tyme
On May 1, 11:52 am, "Justin Tyme" <J...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Joseki" <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> You deny being a creationist yet refuse to
> offer any realistic alternative as to how life began on earth.
Jabber BS snip!
I have.. you were not paying attention. Now go take some Ritalin so
>you can focus.
No, you have not. You've suggested people look at the bible for an
alternative.
Justin Tyme
So then everything you wrote about your family is true?
Justin Tyme
"Ghent" <jab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfbf2b39-4965-4abe...@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
The truth hurts eh, Antonio & 149 alters? You are a true kOoK.
Joseki
well of course... because I didn't write anything at all. But that not
going to stop you and your vivid imagination.
Joseki
> "Ghent" <jabr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
probably hurts you.. not me...your truth, is part of a deranged
mind..which you own.
SkyEyes
> Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action?
> Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious. First, the
> comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal
> similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others
> are small.
Why should they be similar in size? Size is no barrier to evolution.
Look at dogs: which is more typical, the Great Dane or the Chihuahua?
>
> A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those
> creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are
> often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years.
Yes, and? We're *never* going to find fossils representing *every*
variation. Fossilization is too complicated and haphazard a process.
Even if such fossils exit, we'll never find all of them.
> Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils,
> zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the
> fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their
> possible connection through ancestry and descent.
This is true. However, sometimes evidence is hard to argue with, like
when you find a trout in the milk. Or Tiktaalik *right where it was
supposed to be*.
> Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm
> S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small,
> “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that
> existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no
> way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms
> were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might
> have been to each other.”
Fish-to-amphibians: Tiktaalik.
Reptiles-to-mammals: you don't need fossils for that. The Monotremes
(echidna and platypus), while not ancestors of placental mammals,
nevertheless are an instance of mammals which have *almost* gotten rid
of all reptilian characteristics (they have a few left, including the
fact that they lay eggs) and have become mammals, albeit primitive
ones.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Justin Tyme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh yes you did, or no one would have known of your family problems. No one
would have known you even had a daughter or that she was bi-polar and had a
child out of wedlock. Or how you bragged how you forced her out of your
home with her infant daughter .
And if anyone wants to take the time to look it up... it's still out there
on different archives.
Justin Tyme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And that's the best you can do? :-D Everyone here knows your history
Jabbers. You seem to forget that and if you deny something... everyone will
believe it. I'm done with this thread.