The Skulls Talk
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable
of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances-
have all emerged by chance, spontaneously, ever since when natural elements
and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and wind combined over
long periods of time to create life.
However, this myth is so ridiculous that not even a primary school student
could possibly believe it.
http://www.skullsdemolishdarwinism.com/skulls_darwin.html
Boikat
> According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and brightly
> colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable
> of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances-
> have all emerged by chance, spontaneously, ever since when natural elements
> and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and wind combined over
> long periods of time to create life.
Mostly false. The laws of physics and chemistry mediate a lot of the
"chance" element.
>
> However, this myth is so ridiculous that not even a primary school student
> could possibly believe it.
1) Not surprisingly, that wouldbe deu to the fact that primary school
students (1-6th grade) do not have the knowledge needed to evaluate
the theory and the evidence that is involved.
2) On the other hand, "primary school students", at least the younger
ones, believe in a "jolly old elf" that gives them presents every
year, and the easter bunny.
Which brings up point ..
3) So, your education level has never risen above that of a primary
school student. That was already evident.
Boikat
>
> http://www.skullsdemolishdarwinism.com/skulls_darwin.html
So, you're embrasing the quackery of an islamic fundy nitwit? Crap,
"YooHoo" is as stupid as Hovind.
Boikat
redd...@bresnan.net
> According to Darwinist logic,
'Darwinist" logic is no different than any normal, every day logic
used by scientists.
> tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and brightly
> colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable
> of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances-
> have all emerged by chance, spontaneously,
No, not by chance, but by a non random process of evolution.
> ever since when natural elements
> and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and wind combined over
> long periods of time to create life.
Chemistry is what produced life. Thunder and wind probably had
little to do with it.
>
> However, this myth is so ridiculous that not even a primary school student
> could possibly believe it.
Strawmen are usually easy to mock. Try learning about the real
thing.
>
> http://www.skullsdemolishdarwinism.com/skulls_darwin.html
Just another telling of the 'no transitional fossils' lie. So what?
DJT
wf3h
> According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and brightly
> colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable
> of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances-
> have all emerged by chance, spontaneously, ever since when natural elements
> and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and wind combined over
> long periods of time to create life.
>
> However, this myth is so ridiculous that not even a primary school student
> could possibly believe it.
>
good thing primary school students dont run science, then isnt i?
and why not explain to a student how creationism works?
oh. you can't. there is no working in creationism
[M]adman
ah. The old random "Thunder and wind probably had little to do with it".
Or are you saying thunder and wind are guided processes?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et>:
>According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and brightly
>colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable
>of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances-
>have all emerged by chance
Nope; wrong again. I'm *sure* this error has been corrected
for you several times; are you incapable of learning?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Boikat
When you get down to the physics of lightning and wind, they are not
random, since they are constrained by the laws of physics. So, in a
sense, they are guided. Just not by any intelligent guide.
Boikat
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Harshman
[M]adman
Christians, Muslim, Jew. Same God
Devils Advocaat
That may be so, but look at the history of the interactions of these
three religious groups, which is full of conflict, intolerance, hatred
and war.
> - Hide quoted text -
Anlatt the Builder
> According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and brightly
> colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable
> of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances-
> have all emerged by chance, spontaneously, ever since when natural elements
> and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and wind combined over
> long periods of time to create life.
>
Again, you don't understand that natural selection, a key part of the
theory of evolution, is not random. Areyou capable of learning?
Boikat
Common mythology. And?
Boikat
MarkA
It is *infinitely* less ridiculous to speculate, with ZERO evidence, that
there is a magical super-guy who did it all instead. Riiiiiight.
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
Wombat
O ye gods and little fishes, can you not get it into your pointy
head, the Christians have a triune God, the Jews have the singular
Jehovah and the Muslims the singular Allih.
Wombat
Flywatch
>According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and brightly
>colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable
>of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances-
>have all emerged by chance, spontaneously, ever since when natural elements
>and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and wind combined over
>long periods of time to create life.
>
>However, this myth is so ridiculous that not even a primary school student
>could possibly believe it.
I know some primary school kids who understand what evolution is, and
how it works. One of them also sees through lies and strawmen like
yours already, at the age of eleven.
You obviously have not reached that level yet.
>http://www.skullsdemolishdarwinism.com/skulls_darwin.html
Ah, Allah be praised!
Jim Willemin
news:a3458496-e2ad-46f0...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Actually, isn't the Trinity more a Western Christianity thing? I thought
the Orthodox branch was far less dogmatic on that. I could be wrong,
though.
wf3h
so you say. but i dont know of any trinitarian muslims or jews.
Frank J
Ken Ham, Ken Miller. Same God. But while you're sittin' in LaLa land
waitin' for your Yahya man, it's still evolution.
Frank J
Harun Yahya?? Did you convert to Islam, or is pseudoscience still your
primary religion?
Frank J
Except that we can't rule out a guide so intelligent that he/she/it is
undetectable by mere H. sapiens (Bart Kosko's "ants walking across a
calculus text" comes to mind").
To be clear, this is *not* an endorsement of ID, but rather a
*criticism*. Dembski was quite slick at picking "chance" and
"regularity" to infer design (by a faulty "elimination"). Unlike most
of his followers, he knows that C and R are all we have to work with.
When *real* "design science" (e.g. archaeology, forensics) detects a
"designer" it (1) uses the "side information" (independent evidence of
designers) that Dembski lacks, and (2) keeps investigating what the
designer did, when, and how. Dembski has to stop at "some designer did
something at some time" because he can't call attention to those
questions because it would aggravate the hopeless disagreement under
the big tent.
>
> Boikat
>
> Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
Speaking of skulls, which of *these* creationists do you agree with,
if any?:
John Harshman
history, only the bible. Why? Is it not a true revelation? How do you tell?
TomS
<Xns9BF9481FC9CF0j...@216.196.97.131>, Jim Willemin stated..."
The big division between the western church and the eastern church
is about how to say it. The Latins decided to add to the statement
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father the words "and the
Son".
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
[M]adman
The wisdom, the history, is all closely related. Noah, Adam, Abraham, Jesus,
All in the Qur'an.
And why not? As i have explained, they all originate from the same family;
they had the same ancestor and father: Abraham; and they all worship the
same God. So their history will be the same, their wisdoms will be simular.
As for "true revelation", well, does anyone hold the absolute truth? Oh!
THAT's right. Evolution is absolute truth, eh?
Did you care to address my original post regarding the evolution myth being
so ridiculous that not even a primary school student would possibly believe
it?
[M]adman
No, i learn. But i also verify the information before i swallow it whole as
you do with evolution.
You k00ksters only look at 50% of the equation. And quite frequently i might
add.
Of course the natural selection itself is not random. But the processes
that CAUSE natural selection are.
Therefore natural selection is not predictable.
redd...@bresnan.net
What I'm saying is that chemistry was what produced life, not "thunder
and wind".
DJT
wf3h
and only a primary school student would accept creationism as true.
for 2000 years it's proven....PROVEN to be worthless. sacrificing
goats to cure disease....blaming victims for their 'sins'....
creationism is useless.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>John Harshman wrote:
>> [M]adman wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>> [M]adman wrote:
>>>>> According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and
>>>>> brightly colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling
>>>>> human beings capable of taking precautions and signing their names
>>>>> to scientific advances- have all emerged by chance, spontaneously,
>>>>> ever since when natural
>>>>> elements and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and
>>>>> wind combined over long periods of time to create life.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, this myth is so ridiculous that not even a primary school
>>>>> student could possibly believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.skullsdemolishdarwinism.com/skulls_darwin.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Just as it says in the Holy Qur'an. So you're a muslim now?
>>>
>>> Christians, Muslim, Jew. Same God
>>>
>> Yet you seem never to mention the Qur'an as a source of wisdom and
>> true history, only the bible. Why? Is it not a true revelation? How
>> do you tell?
>
>The wisdom, the history, is all closely related. Noah, Adam, Abraham, Jesus,
>All in the Qur'an.
And all fictional characters.
[snip more Mudbrain crap.]
--
Bob.
Boikat
> Anlatt the Builder wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 4:36 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and
> >> brightly colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling
> >> human beings capable of taking precautions and signing their names
> >> to scientific advances-
> >> have all emerged by chance, spontaneously, ever since when natural
> >> elements and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and
> >> wind combined over long periods of time to create life.
>
> > Again, you don't understand that natural selection, a key part of the
> > theory of evolution, is not random. Areyou capable of learning?
>
> No, i learn. But i also verify the information before i swallow it whole as
> you do with evolution.
Yet natural selection is a fact that you seem to not understand.
>
> You k00ksters only look at 50% of the equation. And quite frequently i might add.
Another meaningless pseudo claim.
>
> Of course the natural selection itself is not random. But the processes
> that CAUSE natural selection are.
Well, then. That means evolution is not totally random, and you've
just shot down your own argument. As far as "but the processes that
cause natural selection are", is irrelevent, since the process of
natural selection mediates any of the "randomness" involved.
Boikat
Boikat
Chris
Bzzzt wrong again.
Chris
[M]adman
I assume you have proof for that assertion? hummm??
Ye Old One
Yes, there is a book of bronze age creation myths and fairy stories
called "the bible". Most of the characters have their origins in
there, though some are based on even earlier fictional characters.
Many also appear in a later book of fiction called the Koran.
--
Bob.
Mark Evans
> According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and brightly
> colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable
> of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances-
> have all emerged by chance, spontaneously, ever since when natural elements
> and phenomena such as mud, rain, lightning, thunder and wind combined over
> long periods of time to create life.
>
> However, this myth is so ridiculous that not even a primary school student
> could possibly believe it.
>
> http://www.skullsdemolishdarwinism.com/skulls_darwin.html
Umm, you do realize that you just falsified your creation myth, don't
you? Hello? Storm god (rain, wind, lightening. thunder and such)
making life from dirt? Right, it doesn't make much sense.
Mark Evans
Mark Evans
No, idiot. The processes that drive mutation are random, natural
selection is not. Natural selection is quite predictable.
Mark Evans
Mark Evans
Do you have proof they existed? We have a lot of written records of
King Arthur, Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Frodo Baggins,
Merlyn, and visual records of Superman, Batman and Spider-man. Heck,
there is even a lot of documentation for a great American president
named Regan. Some have threads of reality in them, some do not. And
some are about 90% fantasy,if not more.
Mark Evans
John Harshman
Actually, there's a simlpler explanation. The Qur'an was dictated by
Mohammed, who was acquainted with Jewish and Christian scriptures. A
common history, or Arab tradition, has nothing to do with it.
> As for "true revelation", well, does anyone hold the absolute truth? Oh!
> THAT's right. Evolution is absolute truth, eh?
I believe we've discussed this already. Only religion makes claims to
absolute truth, and nobody actually has it.
> Did you care to address my original post regarding the evolution myth being
> so ridiculous that not even a primary school student would possibly believe
> it?
Sure. It isn't, and many primary school students believe it. It may be
that nobody would believe your ridiculous strawman caricature of
evolution, but I can't be sure of that, because nobody has ever tried.
Boikat
Who needs proof (or evidence) to support a claim?
You certanly do not think you do, otherwise, you would have presented
such proof (or evidence) to support your claims that...
Kent Hovind was a brilliant scientist that made many discoveries
((Admit it. At the time you made that claim, you had no idea who Kent
Hovind was)>
That wars had been fought because science dispelled some aspect of
some religion. (Just admit that you, being an anti-science fucktard,
made that claim because your ass got whooped in that thread, but
thought you could score some cheap shot point. Didn't work, did it.)
That Hitlers understanding of the ToE was manifest in both WWI and
WWII. WWI? Admit it, you fuctards like to link the ToE with Hitler
because, it too, is a cheap shot that you imagine holds some
relevence. Stupid you)
You have *no* right to demand evidence for anything, asshole.
Boikat
[M]adman
The processes that can cause natural selection are anything BUT predictable.
Which makes natural selection unpredictable.
Damn some of you are dumb.
[M]adman
And you know these are myths and fairy stories ...how? prey tell...
wf3h
meaningless. natural selection makes predictions. it can not, however,
predict the outcome of the weather, meteorites or other similiar
events which have an effect on natural selection
the creationist just doesnt know what he's talking about. no surprise
there...
creationism? useless. absolutely useless
>
> Damn some of you are dumb.-
and you've elevated ignorance to the godhead
Cory Albrecht
So if it's an extra cold winter, one cannot predict that the mammals
with the thinnest layer of fat or the thinnest fur are going to be the
ones who die? And that the ones with the thicker fat & fur will be ones
who survive to reproduce next spring?
Gee, who'd've thunk it that one could never make a prediction like that.
> Damn some of you are dumb.
Sorry, we're not all like you.
Devils Advocaat
But it has already been pointed out to you (in another thread) that
there are random processes that can result in non-random effects, such
as the pressure exerted by a gas, and the rate at which radioactive
isotopes decay.
It has also been pointed out to you that while mutations to a genome
may be random the rate at which mutations occur is not.
Why do you persist in ignoring these little bits of evidence that show
your reasoning to be flawed?
>
> Damn some of you are dumb.- Hide quoted text -
[M]adman
Because you want all of science to be interchangable regarding evolution.
The entire theory is double talk.
Devils Advocaat
Not so, all I want is for you to realise that non-random phenomena can
have random causes.
Is that so hard for you to accept, especially when there is evidence
that clearly supports this fact?
>
> The entire theory is double talk.
>
Can you support this assertion with reasoned argument?
>
>
>
> >> Damn some of you are dumb.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Chris
The exact same words are used to describe evolution as any other
natural process. I am afraid it's you who's engaging in the double-
talk. You wish to apply some non-standard metric to evolutionary
biology in order to exclude it from the realm of science. But that
won't wash. A trip to any university library (I know, you stay away
from places with journals to lessen the risk of anaphylaxis) will
reveal dozens of journals filled with good science, all about
evolution. On top of those, if you look at pretty much *any* biology
journal, you're going to find an evolution-related
article...in...every...single...issue. Then you can expand your search
to include the geology journals. You'll find evolution articles in
there, too.
We get back again to the acumen of creationists, which puts Karnak to
shame. Without training, without schooling, without experience,
without ever having seen 1% of the things these journal articles
describe, you feel absurdly confident in dismissing the findings and
conclusions of people who've spent years studying these phenomena, not
to mention the rigorous analyses performed on the data they are
presenting.
Chutzpah- definitely. Expertise- not on your life.
Chris
[M]adman
What you fail to realize is the forces and causes of NS and GM are random.
Too random to claim that NS and GM are enough to cause entire populations to
change over time.
>>
>> The entire theory is double talk.
>>
> Can you support this assertion with reasoned argument?
The argument is played out on this NG every day.
[M]adman
You want evolution to be true so badly that you give it a narrow set of
metric and then claim anything else does not apply.
Example.
You want the color red to be red so badly that you filter out all of the
blue and green that may alter the color but may also apply.
Chris
Gibberish.
You have never successfully refuted a single example people have
presented. That's why you run screaming into the night every time
there's a literature citation or textbook example thrown at you. It's
too bad for you, but your howls don't make all the journal articles go
poof! out of existence.
Chris
Ye Old One
Because of their nature and subject matter.
--
Bob.
wf3h
really? differential reproduction is random? a better immune system or
the ability to run faster from predators is random?
gee. you creationists have a very strange view of random. in fact,
your view of random is, itself, random.
creationism is useless.
>
>
Chris
What's random about "If you are an unpigmented moth on a dark
background there's an 80% chance you'll be eaten by a bird"? Sounds
like a pretty strong correlation to me.
>
> >> The entire theory is double talk.
>
> > Can you support this assertion with reasoned argument?
>
> The argument is played out on this NG every day.
When will the OED pick up the fact that "reasoned argument" now means
"non sequitur"?
Chris
Devils Advocaat
mean genetic mutation.
I haven't denied that mutations in the genome of an organism are
random, in as much as you cannot say with any degree of certainty
which part of which gene is going to be affected.
But I have offered to present evidence that shows that the rate at
which mutations arise in the genomes of any organism is a non-random
event.
You have suggested that you wont look at this evidence, and you have
even suggested that the rate has nothing to do with it.
Natural selection is not random, those organisms with advantageous
mutations tend to survive longer and have more chances to reproduce
than those that don't have that particular mutation.
Perhaps you can present evidence that supports your contention that
Natural Selection is random, and that it is too random to cause
changes in a population of organisms over time.
Or perhaps you will be willing to examine the evidence that shows that
while mutations in any genome are random, the rate of mutation in any
genome is not.
>
> >> The entire theory is double talk.
>
> > Can you support this assertion with reasoned argument?
>
> The argument is played out on this NG every day.
>
Unsupported assertions do not constitute a reasoned arguement.
>
>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:36:04 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et>:
>
>>According to Darwinist logic, tigers, hares, cats, butterflies, and brightly
>>colored flowers-as well as thinking, reasoning, feeling human beings capable
>>of taking precautions and signing their names to scientific advances-
>>have all emerged by chance
>
>Nope; wrong again. I'm *sure* this error has been corrected
>for you several times; are you incapable of learning?
[crickets...]
I'll take that as a "Yes".
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Translation: No, I cannot support my assertion with any reasoned
argument.
Not a surprise since you show no signs of knowing what a reasoned
argument is.
<snip>
[M]adman
: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:19:28 -0500, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et>
The nature of the bible is not one of entertainment. It is one to inform.
[M]adman
It was the cause of the dark background that is your problem.
Why can't you understand?
The cause of the dark background is NOT NS. But it triggered NS randomly,
even chaotically.
::
:::
::::: The entire theory is double talk.
:::
:::: Can you support this assertion with reasoned argument?
:::
::: The argument is played out on this NG every day.
::
:: When will the OED pick up the fact that "reasoned argument" now means
:: "non sequitur"
QED
:: Chris
[M]adman
Did you bang your knee on the desk after that knee jerk?
You only want to accept evidence that is on your 'acceptable evidence list'.
Ye Old One
Rubbish. They were camp fire stories, all cultures at that level have
them. They are no more real than the Greek myths of Olympus or the
Viking sagas.
>
--
Bob.
Burkhard
as real as...... ;o)
Boikat
It is to inform of morality, mostly, and that does not mean it is not
fictional for the most part. For instance, "The boy who cried wolf".
There is nothing to indicate that it is a true story, yet the
*message* of the story is still valid.
I know you're too stupid to understand that, but there it is.
Boikat
Burkhard
> Chris wrote:
> :::
> ::: What you fail to realize is the forces and causes of NS and GM are
> ::: random. Too random to claim that NS and GM are enough to cause
> ::: entire populations to change over time.
> :::
> ::
> :: What's random about "If you are an unpigmented moth on a dark
> :: background there's an 80% chance you'll be eaten by a bird"? Sounds
> :: like a pretty strong correlation to me.
>
> It was the cause of the dark background that is your problem.
>
> Why can't you understand?
>
> The cause of the dark background is NOT NS. But it triggered NS randomly,
> even chaotically.
>
>
If this were true, repetitions of the experiment should have given
different results from the first run. They didn't.
Not random, not chaotic, highly predictable and patterned. You can try
it yourself. One week, dress all in black and run in the dark over a
busy street. The next week dress all in yellow, do the same. keep a
record of how often you are run over by a car. I predict that it will
happen more often in week one than two.
Boikat
The cause of the dark background was soot. So?
>
> Why can't you understand?
Understand what? That you are trying to ignore the main point?
>
> The cause of the dark background is NOT NS. But it triggered NS randomly,
> even chaotically.
Nobody said the dark background was caused by NS, fuctard, but
introduced a new element into the environment that put light colored
moths at a disadvantage in that environment. There was nothing
"random" about it, and the concept, in this context, is obviously way
above your head since if it were "chaotic", there would have been no
effect on the ratio of dark and light colored moths.
>
> ::
> :::
> ::::: The entire theory is double talk.
> :::
> :::: Can you support this assertion with reasoned argument?
> :::
> ::: The argument is played out on this NG every day.
> ::
> :: When will the OED pick up the fact that "reasoned argument" now means
> :: "non sequitur"
>
> QED
You apparently think "QED" means something other than what "QED"
means.
Boikat