Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ???
DaveinI...@webtv.net
life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the
greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of
fact" -----Dr. T.N.Tahmisian of The Atomic Energy Commission, USA in
'The Fresno Bee' , as quoted by N.J. Mitchell, Evolution and the
Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon publications, UK, title page.
How dare he make a statement like that above ???! Of course macro
evolution is scientific because thats what we've all been told for so
long. Afterall, this following Evolutionist sheds more light on the
subject :
" In fact, (macro or chemical) evolution became in a sense a scientific
RELIGION ; almost all scientists have accepted it and man are prepared
to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it" ------ H.S. Lipson, FRS
Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK in 'A physicist looks
at Evolution', Physics bulletin vol. 31 page 138.
Guess we ALL have 'a Religion' -- even Atheists !
Tom
<DaveinI...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:154-4085...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
Poor old simple ass, Dave the troll. He cuts and pastes and never
understands the first damn word he pastes. What an unfortunate ass.
DaveinI...@webtv.net
too !?
I gave you the sources....check em out, if you are 'willing' (which is
the key word to being an atheist ---- the will is stronger than
accepting the truth)
I know...i used to be an atheist.
Dave
Hector Plasmic
> i used to be an atheist.
Back when you were a little ten-legged female from the planet Yuggoth?
You silly little fundy.
DaveinI...@webtv.net
Back when you were a little ten-legged female from the planet Yuggoth?
You silly little fundy.
Hec'
ME: Nope...it was back when i was an accidental Pond Protozoa which
came from accidental non-living chemicals which came from an accidental
universe which came from nothing by no one ; isnt Atheism a riot !!??
Martin Willett
You can't have been a very good one then, can you?
http://mwillett.org/atheism/exatheists.htm
--
Martin Willett
Tom
<DaveinI...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2233-408...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
> Cutting and pasting isnt a crime is it ?? Dont atheists cut and paste
> too !?
Right moron, but we know the subject matter of the things we cut and paste.
You are clueless.
> I gave you the sources....check em out, if you are 'willing' (which is
> the key word to being an atheist ---- the will is stronger than
> accepting the truth)
Yes and they were checked and found to be lies.
> I know...i used to be an atheist.
ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!! Dave once again shows that he hasn't a clue as to what
an atheist is. He thinks that if you "sin" you are an atheist. I told Dave
that it was impossible for him to have been an atheist because he doesn't
have the reasoning ability to understand his god is a myth.
Tom
I don't know about atheism but you are the funniest little fundie to come
along in a long time, also the dumbest. I told you several times you don't
have the reasoning capability to escape the teachings of your fundie friends
and to be an atheist.
Adrian Miles-Davros
news:c66eav$8gspc$1...@ID-224148.news.uni-berlin.de...
Interesting points you raise there Martin, which I agree with
wholeheartedly.
In addition, I feel that, and Dave is a good example of this, there are a
group of people who have turned to a christian belief because their lives
have been riddled with failure, and they themselves are woefully inadequate
and unable to take responsibility for their lives so they pass up all the
responsibility to their imaginary friend.
The imaginary friend wipes the slate clean for them, but they still have to
assuage the guilt they feel in some way, so take to preaching their
fundamentalist garbage anywhere and everywhere they can.
They may indeed have success on a material level, as does Dave, with his
house, and his Corvette and his guns etc. His toys which serve to prove to
him and others like him that they are "successful". Yet it is all a sham, as
is the assumed christianity, because inside they are so consumed with the
guilt of their own personal inadequacy and so in denial of that fact, that
if they allowed themselves to admit they were wrong about their so called
god, they would probably crack up completely.
Dave really does need to seek psychiatric help, as I have told him on
endless past occasions, but unfortunately he won't.
Adrian
DaveinI...@webtv.net
come along in a long time, also the dumbest. I told you several times
you don't have the reasoning capability to escape the teachings of your
ME: You should know about Atheism ; all your replies are textbook
Atheism.
You can try to intimidate if you wish..but it wont work. Its called ad
hominem attack and its used when the perpetrator cant come up with a
reasonable defense and instead gets upset/angry and feels a need to
attack ones character to bolster his own ego. As for me once being an
Atheist...i was once ; But i changed my mind and heart once i put my
pride aside and became intellectually honest with myself ; it involved
denying my ulterior motives as an atheist with the intent of coming to
terms with what the truth really was....something not many Atheists can
do because of their pride ,arrogance, and willful ignorance to truth
(and of course, their unwillingness to commit to a sound moral and
ethical framework).
Tom
<DaveinI...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11036-40...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...
> 'I don't know about atheism but you are the funniest little fundie to
> come along in a long time, also the dumbest. I told you several times
> you don't have the reasoning capability to escape the teachings of your
> fundie friends and to be an atheist.'
>
> ME: You should know about Atheism ; all your replies are textbook
> Atheism.
I do know about atheism and I also know that you don't know squat about
atheism as can be told from your posts.
> You can try to intimidate if you wish..but it wont work. Its called ad
> hominem attack and its used when the perpetrator cant come up with a
> reasonable defense and instead gets upset/angry and feels a need to
> attack ones character to bolster his own ego.
I definitely get upset and angry when ignorant pricks like you come in here
with your proselytizing. I can, however, come up with a reasonable defense
against anything you say and so far I think the record will show that I
have done a pretty good job of it. What the record will also show is that
you fail to address specific points of another post and "cherry-pick" your
relies. Isn't cheating against the precepts of Christianity?
> As for me once being an
> Atheist...i was once ; But i changed my mind and heart once i put my
> pride aside and became intellectually honest with myself ;
This is an area in which you keep asserting but yet never show any proof
that you were an atheist. Those of us who are atheists know right away that
your statement " I changed my mind and heart" know that you are full of
shit.
>it involved
> denying my ulterior motives as an atheist with the intent of coming to
> terms with what the truth really was....something not many Atheists can
> do because of their pride ,arrogance, and willful ignorance to truth
> (and of course, their unwillingness to commit to a sound moral and
> ethical framework).
Blah..blah..blah..when you get something of substance little Davey, present
it, otherwise you are just blah...blah...blah.
DaveinI...@webtv.net
a group of people who have turned to a christian belief because their
lives have been riddled with failure, and they themselves are woefully
inadequate and unable to take responsibility for their lives so they
pass up all the responsibility to their imaginary friend.
The imaginary friend wipes the slate clean for them, but they still have
to assuage the guilt they feel in some way, so take to preaching their
fundamentalist garbage anywhere and everywhere they can.
They may indeed have success on a material level, as does Dave, with his
house, and his Corvette and his guns etc. His toys which serve to prove
to him and others like him that they are "successful". Yet it is all a
sham, as is the assumed christianity, because inside they are so
consumed with the guilt of their own personal inadequacy and so in
denial of that fact, that if they allowed themselves to admit they were
wrong about their so called god, they would probably crack up
completely.
Dave really does need to seek psychiatric help, as I have told him on
endless past occasions, but unfortunately he won't.
ME: Having a few toys like a fast car and target shooting firearms isnt
illegal, nor is it banned in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says in
Ecclesiastes that if God has given you things to enjoy, that you should
be thankful and enjoy them. And , that i do.
Until you come to terms with your own guilt of being a Sinner in need of
a Saviour instead of trying to pull up your own bootstraps, you will be
facing an eternity where the reprobate go to have ample time to reflect
on your pride for not accepting Gods free undeserved offer in Christ ;
its putting a stake thru your pride that helps a person...not
egocentricism. Finally....why should we put any faith in what you say
as a licensed UK Psychologist when your logic includes giving your 12
year old twin daughters packages of condoms complete with YOUR personal
instructions on how to apply them to teenage boys that might desire to
sexually experiment on your own flesh and blood (as unashamedly admitted
in another DG) ?? It is clearly yourself who needs to spend much
sofa-time with your Psychologist peers. You really should have spent
incarceration time for that absurd rotten display of an irresponsible
parent ; especially given your 'professional 'qualitications. You are a
danger to a civilized society Adrain, and its only thru the life -
changing experience of coming to Christ that you will ever change from
this perpetual state of reprobatia.
Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild
>"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
>evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
---
Anti-War / Anti-Fascism protest: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/awp.htm
"The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women
and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda,
and that is lies." -- Senior military spokesman Mark Kimmitt, Nazi
"...since when is fighting invaders in your own country terrorism?" - Tempest
Randy Story
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote in
message news:108eg66...@corp.supernews.com...
> DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
> >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
>
> Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
>
> In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
> belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
> "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
> of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
> to describe the observed phenomena.
>
> Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
> your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change* withins
kinds or families. Change is not necessarly upward or downward, just change.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the same idea in sceintific
circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
AC
johac
Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG (Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild) wrote:
> DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
> >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
>
> Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
>
> In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
> belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
> "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
> of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
> to describe the observed phenomena.
>
> Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
> your cult masters program into you.
>
Macro evolution = the great granddaddy of all strawmen.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Adrian Miles-Davros
news:11038-40...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...
> 'In addition, I feel that, and Dave is a good example of this, there are >
a group of people who have turned to a christian belief because their >
lives have been riddled with failure, and they themselves are woefully
> inadequate and unable to take responsibility for their lives so they >
pass up all the responsibility to their imaginary friend. > The imaginary
friend wipes the slate clean for them, but they still have > to assuage the
guilt they feel in some way, so take to preaching their
> fundamentalist garbage anywhere and everywhere they can. > They may
indeed have success on a material level, as does Dave, with his > house, and
his Corvette and his guns etc. His toys which serve to prove > to him and
others like him that they are "successful". Yet it is all a
> sham, as is the assumed christianity, because inside they are so >
consumed with the guilt of their own personal inadequacy and so in > denial
of that fact, that if they allowed themselves to admit they were > wrong
about their so called god, they would probably crack up
> completely. > Dave really does need to seek psychiatric help, as I have
told him on > endless past occasions, but unfortunately he won't.
> Adrian'
>
> ME: Having a few toys like a fast car and target shooting firearms isnt >
illegal, nor is it banned in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says in >
Ecclesiastes that if God has given you things to enjoy, that you should > be
thankful and enjoy them. And , that i do.>
The bible also says you "Should put away your childish things!" which
definitly includes the Bible itself.
> Until you come to terms with your own guilt of being a Sinner in need of >
a Saviour instead of trying to pull up your own bootstraps, you will be >
facing an eternity where the reprobate go to have ample time to reflect
> on your pride for not accepting Gods free undeserved offer in Christ ; >
its putting a stake thru your pride that helps a person...not >
egocentricism.
Frothing at the brain again here Dave. I've told you before, I'm not a
sinner, and I don't accept your Augustinian notion of born depravity.
Finally....why should we put any faith in what you say
> as a licensed UK Psychologist when your logic includes giving your 12 >
year old twin daughters packages of condoms complete with YOUR personal
> instructions on how to apply them to teenage boys that might desire to >
sexually experiment on your own flesh and blood (as unashamedly admitted >
in another DG) ??
As usual Dave twisting the facts to suit yourself and your book of lies LOL!
I won't bore other people here by pasting what I actually said, however just
to ensure you know that you are lying. My daughters are not twins, and I
ensured they had a sexual education at menarche, and knew what condoms were
for. No boys were involved LOL! So I ask the question again that I've asked
you before:-
Is lying a Christian virtue, or is it against your 10 commandments, and if
it is against your 10 commandments, why do you insist on lying?
It is clearly yourself who needs to spend much
> sofa-time with your Psychologist peers. You really should have spent >
incarceration time for that absurd rotten display of an irresponsible >
parent ; especially given your 'professional 'qualitications.
ROFLOL! Dear me Dave you get worse you really do! So a parent who ensures
that their child is educated to a standard beyond that taught in schools
should go to prison! If you weren't so funny you would be dangerous!
You are a > danger to a civilized society Adrain, and its only thru the
life - > changing experience of coming to Christ that you will ever change
from > this perpetual state of reprobatia.>
I've told you Dave I don't believe or accept your imaginary friend, neither
am I a reprobate, by any definition of the word.
Adrian
stew dean
> a group of people who have turned to a christian belief because their
> lives have been riddled with failure, and they themselves are woefully
> inadequate and unable to take responsibility for their lives so they
> pass up all the responsibility to their imaginary friend.
> The imaginary friend wipes the slate clean for them, but they still have
> to assuage the guilt they feel in some way, so take to preaching their
> fundamentalist garbage anywhere and everywhere they can.
> They may indeed have success on a material level, as does Dave, with his
> house, and his Corvette and his guns etc. His toys which serve to prove
> to him and others like him that they are "successful". Yet it is all a
> sham, as is the assumed christianity, because inside they are so
> consumed with the guilt of their own personal inadequacy and so in
> denial of that fact, that if they allowed themselves to admit they were
> wrong about their so called god, they would probably crack up
> completely.
> Dave really does need to seek psychiatric help, as I have told him on
> endless past occasions, but unfortunately he won't.
> Adrian'
>
> ME: Having a few toys like a fast car and target shooting firearms isnt
> illegal, nor is it banned in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says in
> Ecclesiastes that if God has given you things to enjoy, that you should
> be thankful and enjoy them. And , that i do.
So poluting the environment and owning a dangerous weapon are your
idea of 'freedom'. The psycology is gun owning is very very obvious -
and I know how much fun fast cars can be but everything has a cost -
it's called being responsible.
You want to off load responsibility to a god that says 'hey, go guzzel
fuel, it's your right. Sure use up planet resources because I made
them for you. No need to think about others - you go right ahead
because you are special'.
Boy is that messed up.
> Until you come to terms with your own guilt of being a Sinner in need of
> a Saviour instead of trying to pull up your own bootstraps, you will be
> facing an eternity where the reprobate go to have ample time to reflect
> on your pride for not accepting Gods free undeserved offer in Christ ;
> its putting a stake thru your pride that helps a person...not
> egocentricism.
This comes from someone who boasts about their fast car? Look up pride
in the dictionary.
To use a handy phrase from christians - 'What would jesus do?'. Target
shooting would not be one of them.
> Finally....why should we put any faith in what you say
> as a licensed UK Psychologist when your logic includes giving your 12
> year old twin daughters packages of condoms complete with YOUR personal
> instructions on how to apply them to teenage boys that might desire to
> sexually experiment on your own flesh and blood (as unashamedly admitted
> in another DG) ??
Better keep you daughter in the dark then? 12 is not that far off the
age some teenages first have sex believe it or not. By understanding
the dangers a child realises that it's best to abstain - often quite a
while.
In this case he did the right thing and been a resonsible parent. You
don't appear to get this but then you are the one living in a state of
advanced denial.
Stew Dean
Sverker Johansson
You want a distinction ?
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
ATHEISM IS RELIGION
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - adapted from
CREATIONISM IS SCIENCE George Orwell
JessHC
Time to learn what evolution is.
Eric Gill
>
> "Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
> in message news:108eg66...@corp.supernews.com...
>> DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
>> >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
>>
>> Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
>>
>> In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
>> belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
>> "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
>> of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
>> to describe the observed phenomena.
>>
>> Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
>> your cult masters program into you.
>
>
>
> Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
> simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
> withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
Hector Plasmic
> So poluting the environment and owning a
> dangerous weapon are your idea of 'freedom'.
Mankind's ability to alter our environment is what sets us apart from
the animules. Doing so recklessly is, of course, not a good idea.
And there is, indeed, a very, very close relationship between owning
dangerous weapons and 'freedom.' Those without dangerous weapons are
generally subjugated rather quickly by those who have them -- a fact
you may not like, but cannot escape. The only way to ensure your
freedom is to own dangerous weapons. Welcome to reality 101.
Hector Plasmic
>>> 'i used to be an atheist. '
>> Back when you were a little ten-legged female
>> from the planet Yuggoth? You silly little fundy.
> Nope...it was back when i was an accidental Pond
> Protozoa which came from accidental non-living
> chemicals which came from an accidental
> universe which came from nothing by no one
Only silly little fundies like you, Davy, propose such nonsense. Your
clearly and repeatedly demonstrated complete lack of understanding of
atheism, cosmology, evolutionary biology, and the other topics you
pretend to discuss are what tells us for sure that you're a liar when
you claim to be an atheist. There's not even any room for debate on
the subject.
> isnt Atheism a riot !!??
Atheism's just not believing in gods. Comedy is the funny stuff.
Riots generally involve a lot of people who suddenly find themselves
saddled, at least temporarily, with your IQ and reasoning skills.
Hector Plasmic
> all your replies are textbook Atheism.
What's the name of the textbook, Davy? I mean, we can tell you the
names of the websites where you get your out-of-context quotes (like
http://www.godandscience.org), so why can't you cite the name of the
textbook from which Ted's quoting, as you claim, hmm?
Oh, I'm sorry, I seem to have caught you in another lie. Shame on me
for being so rude, you silly little fundy git.
Dana Tweedy
"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108elr9...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote in
> message news:108eg66...@corp.supernews.com...
> > DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
> > >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
> >
> > Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
> >
> > In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
> > belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
> > "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
> > of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
> > to describe the observed phenomena.
> >
> > Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
> > your cult masters program into you.
>
>
>
> Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
> simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins
> kinds or families.
Evolution is change. Also, can you tell us what is your defintion of
"kind"?
> Change is not necessarly upward or downward, just change.
Evolution is not an upward, or downward process.
> The word change and evolution are definitely not the same idea in
sceintific
> circles.
Evolution, in the strictest sense, means change in the genetic make up of a
population over generations. Any change in an organism is not evolution,
but evolution is most definitely change.
>Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
> one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
Basically, that is the whole debate. Organisms change over time, even
Creationists can no longer deny that. Now they are just trying to say
"This far and no farther". Evolution is a scientific fact, Creationists
are just trying to limit the amount of evolution so they don't have to admit
our relationship with the rest of nature.
DJT
Randy Story
"Sverker Johansson" <l...@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.04042...@posting.google.com...
Macro evolution, no observable proof at all and you know it!
Randy Story
"Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69F...@24.93.44.119...
> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in
> news:108elr9...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >
> > "Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
> > in message news:108eg66...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
> >> >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
> >>
> >> Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
> >>
> >> In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
> >> belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
> >> "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
> >> of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
> >> to describe the observed phenomena.
> >>
> >> Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
> >> your cult masters program into you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
> > simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
> > withins kinds or families.
>
> Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
outside families.
Mitch Alsup
> ME: Having a few toys like a fast car and target shooting firearms isnt
> illegal, nor is it banned in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says in
> Ecclesiastes that if God has given you things to enjoy, that you should
> be thankful and enjoy them. And , that i do.
I thought masterbation was seriously frowned upon in the bible!
And here you say, god encourages it! can you explain the contradiction?
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NHRhc.18532$l75....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Creationists have never denied change, that is a total strawman. What they
have *always* said is there is no crossover between kinds. The closest group
in sceintific terms is the branch family. No observable change has been made
between kinds.
Eric Gill
Not really. Creationists assert there is some kind of sharp limit to the
amount of change possible, with no evidence to back that remark.
> What
> they have *always* said is there is no crossover between kinds.
Yet "kind" mysteriously changes when evidence to falsify the last
definition comes to light, usually to a higher order in the standard
classification system. Probably they are banking on the fact that
eventually the enormous amount of time required will make it all but
impossible to observe the entire process as speciation events.
> The
> closest group in sceintific terms is the branch family. No observable
> change has been made between kinds.
Will you admit you are wrong with examples or not?
Second, you are aware that the definition of macroevolution is spciation,
yes?
Eric Gill
No, we most certainly do not.
What do you care to back that assertion with?
Roadrunner
He may be knows, but then he does not want to know it.
Roadrunner
Is this implying that this would be the reason why ICR does not deny it? I
don't like the way this is put, there is no need for it.
> Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
> reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
As ever, a matter of opinion and nothing else.
Roadrunner
"JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:d58e3ac.04042...@posting.google.com...
Indeed it is in fact an obstacle to believe one knows something when one
doesn't. This is how things tend to get stuck as that something is not even
subject to consideration. This is all waht dogma is about.
Roadrunner
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NHRhc.18532$l75....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
Did they ever? Logic and observation learned us that micro evolution
occurs, no?
> Now they are just trying to say
> "This far and no farther". Evolution is a scientific fact, Creationists
> are just trying to limit the amount of evolution so they don't have to
admit
> our relationship with the rest of nature.
So, let's determine then that this is your personal opinion, not much
science in that though.
Roadrunner
Totally correct as per factual observations made.
AC
Eric Gill
news:XAShc.90517$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net:
Now, now, Clamrunner - you've already got several dozen (or more,
probably hundreds) you cannot support. Why are you wasting time making
more?
gen2rev
<peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in
<XAShc.90517$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net>:
>
> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
> news:108fs5k...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip]
> > Creationists have never denied change, that is a total strawman. What they
> > have *always* said is there is no crossover between kinds. The closest group
> > in sceintific terms is the branch family. No observable change has been made
> > between kinds.
>
> Totally correct as per factual observations made.
And how does one recognize different "kinds"?
Hank
> "Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote in
> message news:108eg66...@corp.supernews.com...
> > DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
> > >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
> >
> > Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
> >
> > In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
> > belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
> > "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
> > of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
> > to describe the observed phenomena.
> >
> > Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
> > your cult masters program into you.
>
> Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
> simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change* withins
> kinds or families. Change is not necessarly upward or downward, just change.
> The word change and evolution are definitely not the same idea in sceintific
> circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
> one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
What do you think is the difference between change and evolution? Please
explain in detail, and why you think "change" is possible but "evolution" is
not.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
Hank
> "Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D344F50A69F...@24.93.44.119...
> > "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in
> > news:108elr9...@corp.supernews.com:
> >
> > >
> > > "Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
> > > in message news:108eg66...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >> DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
> > >> >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
> > >>
> > >> Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
> > >>
> > >> In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
> > >> belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
> > >> "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
> > >> of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
> > >> to describe the observed phenomena.
> > >>
> > >> Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
> > >> your cult masters program into you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
> > > simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
> > > withins kinds or families.
> >
> > Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
>
> It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
> outside families.
And what part of West Virginia are you from? (Aw hell somebody had to say
it.)
eNo
I'd like to know, too. Elsewhere in this thread, he calls it "families"
and ties it to ability to reproduce/breed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69F...@24.93.44.119...
>Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed outside families.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪøĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš
eNo
"If you can't go fast, go long."
øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪøĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš
John Monrad
<40880AB3...@Company.com>...
> Randy Story wrote:
>
> > "Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94D344F50A69F...@24.93.44.119...
> > > "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in
> > > news:108elr9...@corp.supernews.com:
> > >
> > > > simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
> > > > withins kinds or families.
> > >
> > > Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
> >
> > It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
> > outside families.
>
> And what part of West Virginia are you from? (Aw hell somebody had to say
> it.)
I was thinking eastern Kentucky...
Beyond that -- I'd like him to describe the organisms that for the least
part *do* breed outside of families.
--
John Monrad
Phil Roberts
<rsto...@olypen.com> leapt forth and uttered:
> Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then
> I will simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see
> is *change* withins kinds or families.
The term "kinds" has no place in science.
> Change is not necessarly
> upward or downward, just change. The word change and evolution
> are definitely not the same idea in sceintific circles. Yes
> Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no one
> would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
>
Well Fuck-a-doodle-doo. I guess you're right and all those millions
of learned men over all the years who devoted their lives to the
research and progression of the study of biological evolution are
totally wrong.
Step up, claim your prize. You just single-handledly slapped down
one of the most widely accepted scientific principles in the known
world. And you did it without the benefit of ANY actual education
whatsoever! I for one am impressed.
--
Phil Roberts | Dork Pretending To Be Hard | http://www.flatnet.net/
Randy Story
If evolution was thought of only as speciation, no one would argue.
Show me some examples!!
DaveinI...@webtv.net
news:<11038-40...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net>...
ME: Having a few toys like a fast car and target shooting firearms isnt
illegal, nor is it banned in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says in
Ecclesiastes that if God has given you things to enjoy, that you should
be thankful and enjoy them. And , that i do.
Mitch: I thought masterbation was seriously frowned upon in the bible!
And here you say, god encourages it! can you explain the contradiction?
ME: How did you get 'masterbation' out of what i initially said above
?! I was referring to tangible things . Just for the record...the
Bible makes no mention of Masterbation ; if you think it does, please
show the verse. Please be more careful not be make a Strawman argument
as that is most disengenuous .
Dave
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> > Basically, that is the whole debate. Organisms change over time, even
> > Creationists can no longer deny that. Now they are just trying to say
> > "This far and no farther". Evolution is a scientific fact,
Creationists
> > are just trying to limit the amount of evolution so they don't have to
> admit
> > our relationship with the rest of nature.
>
>
>
> Creationists have never denied change, that is a total strawman.
Are you claiming now that the "fixity of species" was never a Creationist
position?
> What they
> have *always* said is there is no crossover between kinds.
Conviently, they never define "kind". How do we know when there has been a
"crossover" if we don't know what the delineation of a kind should be?
>The closest group
> in sceintific terms is the branch family. No observable change has been
made
> between kinds.
Great, Humans and other apes are members of the same family. Can we quote
you as saying that humans and chimps are the same kind?
DJT
>
>
>
>
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> > > The
> > > closest group in sceintific terms is the branch family. No observable
> > > change has been made between kinds.
> >
> > Will you admit you are wrong with examples or not?
> >
> > Second, you are aware that the definition of macroevolution is
spciation,
> > yes?
>
>
>
> If evolution was thought of only as speciation, no one would argue.
> Show me some examples!!
Do you want examples of speciation? No problem
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
We can also infer evolution above the family level. Please see:
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales
Dana Tweedy
"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:8AShc.90516$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
snipping
> > >Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
> > > one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
> >
> > Basically, that is the whole debate. Organisms change over time, even
> > Creationists can no longer deny that.
>
> Did they ever?
Yes. Early creationists claimed that species were fixed, and could never
change.
>Logic and observation learned us that micro evolution
> occurs, no?
Yes, and it's been so well established that even Creationists can no longer
deny this fact. What they are trying to deny now is that microevolution and
macroevolution are basically the same process. The only real difference is
time.
>
> > Now they are just trying to say
> > "This far and no farther". Evolution is a scientific fact,
Creationists
> > are just trying to limit the amount of evolution so they don't have to
> admit
> > our relationship with the rest of nature.
>
> So, let's determine then that this is your personal opinion, not much
> science in that though.
That evolution occurs is a statement of fact. Even Creationists will admit,
if cornered, that evolution occurs. Creationists now try to draw a false
distinction between micro and macro.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Actually, Randy, we know that macroevolution has been directly observed.
Speciation is how macroevolution occurs, and you you have admitted that it
happens. Therefore your assertion that macroevolution "has no observable
proof" is false on it's face.
DJT
Frank Reichenbacher
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
SQUISH!
[sound of cretinist stepping in his own fecal matter]
Frank
>
> DJT
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
Maybe you should check again. We and apes or of the same order. Humans are
of the family Hominidae, apes are of Pongidae, chimps are of. Pan.
As I said no crossover between families which is the closest to *kind* we
have.
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
> news:108g6bp...@corp.supernews.com...
> snipping
>
> > > > The
> > > > closest group in sceintific terms is the branch family. No
observable
> > > > change has been made between kinds.
> > >
> > > Will you admit you are wrong with examples or not?
> > >
> > > Second, you are aware that the definition of macroevolution is
> spciation,
> > > yes?
> >
> >
> >
> > If evolution was thought of only as speciation, no one would argue.
> > Show me some examples!!
>
> Do you want examples of speciation? No problem
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
No creationist have ever claimed that there isnt change within species.
>
> We can also infer evolution above the family level. Please see:
> http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds
> http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales
In this attempt from the past you are trying to prove evolution by assuming
evolution.
Dana Tweedy
> >
> > >
> > > "Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
> > > in message news:108eg66...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >> DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
> > >> >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
> > >>
> > >> Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
> > >>
> > >> In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
> > >> belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
> > >> "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
> > >> of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
> > >> to describe the observed phenomena.
> > >>
> > >> Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
> > >> your cult masters program into you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
> > > simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
> > > withins kinds or families.
> >
>
> It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
> outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are able to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
DJT
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
No crossover between family or kind level, its a fact. as I pointed out in
your psot saying that apes and humans are the same family. They are not!
Look it up!
Hank
That's opinion, spelled e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.
Hank
That's dogma, spelled e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
Macro evolution requires that *all* creatures evolved from the first single
cell organism.
Speciation within fanily or kinds is a absolutely no matter within this
whole debate.
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order. Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
Dana Tweedy
>
> "Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:gcVhc.18674$l75....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
> > news:108g6bp...@corp.supernews.com...
> > snipping
> >
> > > > > The
> > > > > closest group in sceintific terms is the branch family. No
> observable
> > > > > change has been made between kinds.
> > > >
> > > > Will you admit you are wrong with examples or not?
> > > >
> > > > Second, you are aware that the definition of macroevolution is
> > spciation,
> > > > yes?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If evolution was thought of only as speciation, no one would argue.
> > > Show me some examples!!
> >
> > Do you want examples of speciation? No problem
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
>
> No creationist have ever claimed that there isnt change within species.
Are you now equating "kind" with species?
You don't seem to realize, the above are not changes within species. They
are examples of *new* species splitting off from ancestrial populations.
That's change within genus. Creationists, until very recently refused to
accept speciation. Now they do so, very grudgingly.
>
>
> >
> > We can also infer evolution above the family level. Please see:
> > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds
> > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales
>
>
> In this attempt from the past you are trying to prove evolution by
assuming
> evolution.
How so? I'm presenting you with clear evidence that change has occured
above the level of "family". This is not assuming evolution, it's showing
evidence of evolution.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
No, it's an assertion, and a false one at that. I've already shown you
fossil evidence of transitionals above the family level.
> as I pointed out in
> your psot saying that apes and humans are the same family. They are not!
> Look it up!
I did. Not surprisingly, you were wrong. Humans and other apes are
classified as members of Homindiae. Look it up yourself. So, do you
really want to keep declaring your ignorance?
DJT
>
>
>
>
Dana Tweedy
No, it doesn't require that. There may have been multiple lines of descent
at the beginning. Eukaryotes, for example are a fusion of at least two
separate cellular organisms.
> Speciation within fanily or kinds is a absolutely no matter within this
> whole debate.
Speciation is macroevolution. It's the way that new species begin, and all
taxonomies are ultimately based on the species.
DJT
>
>
>
Dana Tweedy
Randy, you need to look for yourself. I'm right, you are wrong. This
denial just makes you look more foolish.
Not only are humans and the other apes the same family, some taxonomists
argue that chimps and humans belong in the same genus.
DJT
>
>
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
> Hominidae includes the great apes; Humans, Chimps, Gorillas, Orangs, and
all
> their extinct cousins. Some older references still place humans as part
of
> their own family, but the most recent taxonomies place humans in the same
> family with the other apes. Some taxonomists argue convincingly that
> humans and chimps belong in the same genus.
>
> See:
>
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Hominidae.ht
ml
>
> Order Primates (primates)
> a.. Family Hominidae (great apes and humans)
> a.. Genus Gorilla (gorillas)
> a.. Species Gorilla gorilla (gorilla)
> a.. Genus Homo (humans)
> a.. Species Homo sapiens (human)
> a.. Genus Pan (chimpanzees)
> a.. Species Pan paniscus (bonobo and pygmy chimpanzee)
> a.. Species Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
> a.. Genus Pongo (orangutan)
> a.. Species Pongo pygmaeus (orangutan)
>
>
>
http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/Eukarya/Anima
lia/Chordata/Vertebrata/Mammalia/Primates/Hominidae/
> "Family Hominidae, the family that we belong to, is also composed of
> chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. It is closely related to the other
> genus of apes, the gibbons, which are in the family Hylobatidae. There are
> only four genera and six species in this family, but it is a very diverse
> group. Male hominids are larger than females, and they have opposable
thumbs
> and big toes, except for the humans. Hominids are the largest primates and
> have developed forearms, but their legs are longer than their arms. Also
> unique to this family inside the order Primates is that hominids lack a
> tail, and only the orangutan actually lives in trees. However, all of the
> species in this family other than humans are very good tree climbers.
> Hominids also have a unique structure of their teeth, with canines that
have
> not developed into tusks and broad incisors. The hominids are probably the
> most advanced family in the world. Even aside from humans, other species
> such as the chimpanzees can learn human sign language and show innovation
> when solving problems."
>
> http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
>
> http://www.makeashorterlink.com/?K4C4232B2
>
> http://www.grungyape.com/old/hominidae.html
>
Great, evolutionists changing established terms because of ther own assumed
views.
I will stick with humans being a distinct kind or family as it is quire
obvious they are.
I guess if evolutionists can just decide to change the game, then so be it.
Typical!!
RobinGoodfellow
This is technically true (humans belong to Hominidae, chimps belong
Pondigae). However, following recent DNA studies, scientists are
suggesting that not only do chimps belong in the same family as humans,
but they belong to the genus Homo as well. Current genetic analysis
shows 99.4% similarity between the functional genes of humans and chimps
- bringing chimps closer to humans than they are to other great apes.
See, for instance,
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993744
While classing chimps into the genus homo is not agreed upon, this is
just one demonstration that the notion of family is simply a
classification construct based on observed genotypic and phenotypic
features, and by no means a fixed genetic boundary that, for some
mysterious, unspecified, and unevidenced reason, can never be crossed by
evolutionary processes. Whatever your "baramin" (created kind) is, a
family it ain't.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
Randy, don't be a sore loser. Who do you think established those terms in
the first place?
> I will stick with humans being a distinct kind or family as it is quire
> obvious they are.
How is it "quite obvious"? Apparently those who made the classifications
didn't see it that way. Even Linnaeus, the great Creationist he was linked
humans and other apes quite closely. The classifications were made by
those who study primate morphology and genetics. Wouldn't they know better
than you?
> I guess if evolutionists can just decide to change the game, then so be
it.
> Typical!!
If the Creationists could come up with some evidence of their own, they
could play the game too. Too bad there is no evidence to support their
beliefs.
DJT
RobinGoodfellow
Dana, no disrespect intended, but technically, Randy appears to be right
on this one. See my reply to him in this thread - it should appear
right next to yours.
Hank
Incorrect. It just means that species evolve, and that new species develop
along the way. A lot of people equate macroevolution with speciation, but the
term really has no scientific meaning, IIRC. Evolution is evolution - the micro
or macro labels are pretty much meaningless.
That "developing from the first single cell organism" thing is abiogenesis, a
different topic entirely.
> Speciation within fanily or kinds is a absolutely no matter within this
> whole debate.
As a population evolves over time, eventually a new species is formed. As that
species evolves further and further and further, and continues to be more and
more different from its ancestors, eventually they are different enough that we
classify them as being in different "families". Same concept.
Randy Story
"RobinGoodfellow" <lmuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c69ba7$eag$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
First, I said family was the closest, second, evolutionists can keep
changing the terms as they please. Third, biblical *kinds* appears to be a
classification of the ability to breed and no matter what you say for the
most part this holds as true today as then. Of course scientists are trying
to artificially attempt to alter this but of course this requires
*intelligent* intervention, something which can not be allowed in the true
theory of evolution.
Randy Story
"Hank" <Ha...@application.com> wrote in message
news:408830EF...@Company.com...
And the fact is no one has observed this unless they assume evolution as
they look at the fossil record. To assume what you are trying to prove is
circular.
Dana Tweedy
I read it, however according to the most recent taxonomy, including the
"tree of life" project. Hominidae includes the great apes as well as
humans. I'm sure some of the older references still refer to Hominidae as
being humans only. Did you read the references I cited?
DJT
>
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
Dana, genetics prove nothing, you would expect similar creatures to have
similar genetics whether they had common descent or design. It appears that
it is in the ability to breed that the classification of kinds is taken.
Also, it is in the differences not the similarities that makes things
distinct, evolutionists are looking at the wrong evidence. The dna program
given by the creator will only allow migrations within breedable kinds,
thats it.
Frank F. Smith
<lmuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Randy Story wrote:
>> "Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:AyVhc.18680$l75....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>"Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
>>>news:108fqtk...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>>"Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns94D344F50A69F...@24.93.44.119...
>>>>
<snip>
>>>>>Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
>>>>
>>>>It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
>>>> breed outside families.
>>>
>>>Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
>>>outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are able
>>>to
>>>interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches produce
>>>offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
>>>interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
>>>appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation
>>> has been observed.
>>>
>>>Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
>>> same family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils
>>>at and above the "family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
>>
>> Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order. Humans,
>> apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
>
>This is technically true (humans belong to Hominidae, chimps belong
>Pondigae).
Maybe depends which taxonomist you ask? See, e.g.,
http://www.tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
(and that's partly the point -- designating a particular taxon above
the species level as "Family" or "Subfamily" or whatever is a
more-or-less arbitrary judgement call)
>However, following recent DNA studies, scientists are
>suggesting that not only do chimps belong in the same family as humans,
>but they belong to the genus Homo as well. Current genetic analysis
>shows 99.4% similarity between the functional genes of humans and chimps
>- bringing chimps closer to humans than they are to other great apes.
>See, for instance,
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993744
>
>While classing chimps into the genus homo is not agreed upon, this is
>just one demonstration that the notion of family is simply a
>classification construct based on observed genotypic and phenotypic
>features, and by no means a fixed genetic boundary that, for some
>mysterious, unspecified, and unevidenced reason, can never be crossed by
>evolutionary processes. Whatever your "baramin" (created kind) is, a
>family it ain't.
--
Frank F. Smith
email: frankf at zoom hyphen dsl dot com
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>
> First, I said family was the closest, second, evolutionists can keep
> changing the terms as they please.
On what grounds do you decare family the "closest" to the Biblical "Kind"?
How do you defind "kind"? Second, terms are not changed on a whim. The
decision to reclassify humans and apes in the same family is based on
comparison of many factors, including morphology, metabolism and genetic
structure.
> Third, biblical *kinds* appears to be a
> classification of the ability to breed and no matter what you say for the
> most part this holds as true today as then.
Then the Biblical "kind" would be closer to "species", as for the vast
majority of sexually reproducing organisms. Family is much to high a taxon
for interbreeding. Of course, you have to explain why, if speices borders
can't be crossed, why organisms cross that border quite often.
>Of course scientists are trying
> to artificially attempt to alter this but of course this requires
> *intelligent* intervention, something which can not be allowed in the true
> theory of evolution.
Scientists have successfully exchanged genes from organisms from entirely
separate kingdoms. However genetic engineering is not evolution. Evolution
proceeds by speciation, ie from branching of new species from ancestrial
populations. We don't see direct family/family crossings, because that's
not the locus of evolutionary change.
DJT
>
>
>
>
SD Anderson
> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<108elr9...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote in
> > message news:108eg66...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
> > > >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
> > >
> > > Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
> > >
> > > In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
> > > belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
> > > "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
> > > of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
> > > to describe the observed phenomena.
> > >
> > > Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
> > > your cult masters program into you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
> > simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change* withins
> > The word change and evolution are definitely not the same idea in sceintific
> > circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
> > one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
>
> You want a distinction ?
>
> Definitions:
> Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
> overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
> Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
> reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Micro-evolution: a term invented by creationists for the purpose of
misleading potential converts into thinking the principle of natural
selection is incapable of breaking the Species barrier.
#113
RobinGoodfellow
Sorry, didn't see your reference. I did, however, just see Frank's. I
stand corrected. My apologies.
Mark VandeWettering
> Dana, genetics prove nothing, you would expect similar creatures to have
> similar genetics whether they had common descent or design.
In trying to score points against evolution, you've actually seriously
damaged the argument that Intelligent Design is science. The reason?
You can't argue that ANY observed feature of genetics isn't possibly the
result of intelligent design: ID is simply not falsifiable.
On the other hand, the common descent hypothesis _is_ falsifiable
(although as yet unfalsified).
> It appears that
> it is in the ability to breed that the classification of kinds is taken.
If you were going to use a term like "kinds" it would behoove you to come
up with an objective definition.
> Also, it is in the differences not the similarities that makes things
> distinct, evolutionists are looking at the wrong evidence. The dna
> program given by the creator will only allow migrations within
> breedable kinds, thats it.
This is simply wrong.
Mark
Dana Tweedy
Tell me, Randy. If you see a series of photographs, taken over the last 100
years, showing the skyline of New York, is it circular to conclude there
have been change in the number, shape, and size of the buildings?
After all, you are assuming that the pictures are an accurate
reflection of the actual shape of the buildings, and that the skyline 100
years ago is different from the skyline today.
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot" of a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual fossils, we
can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms. It
doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change, just a
recongnition that change has occured.
DJT
>
>
Dana Tweedy
>
snipping
> Dana, genetics prove nothing,
That's odd, in court genetic evidence can send a man to a lethal injection,
or determine paternity beyond a reasonable doubt.
> you would expect similar creatures to have
> similar genetics whether they had common descent or design.
Why? That doesn't make sense. A designer would not be required to use the
same genetic pattern for all his or her creations. Nor is there any reason
to put the same broken genes and pseudogenes in the same linage. Humans
and other apes share the same broken gene for vitamin C production, as just
one example.
> It appears that
> it is in the ability to breed that the classification of kinds is taken.
It appears to whom? "Kind" has no real definition, and creationists have
failed to provide any solid explanation why this should be. If there
really were a uncrossible "kind" barrier, then it should be very easy to
provide a clear cut definition of "kind". Creationists should be able to
provide a testable concept of "kind" that science is able make use of.
That they haven't is a good indication that "kind" does not really exist.
> Also, it is in the differences not the similarities that makes things
> distinct, evolutionists are looking at the wrong evidence.
But the similarities are quite striking. The difference between humans and
other apes is less than 2%, even less in effective coding regions. Why
would a creator go to such lenghts to make humans and chimps so genetically,
and morphological similar?
>The dna program
> given by the creator will only allow migrations within breedable kinds,
> thats it.
But the genetic, mophological, biochemical, and biogeographical evidence
shows no evidence of a barrier. "Breedable kinds" has no clear meaning, and
is worthless as a scientific concept. Organisms normally only breed within
species, hybrids between species in the same genus are rare. They are
almost non-existant between distantly related speices in the same family,
without direct interference by humans. Clearly "family" is not anywhere
near "kind".
DJT
Eric Gill
>
> "Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94D37515A1CD7...@24.93.43.119...
>> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in
>> news:108fs5k...@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:NHRhc.18532$l75....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:108elr9...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <Fr...@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
>> >> > wrote in message news:108eg66...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> > > DaveinI...@webtv.net wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
>> >> > > >evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of
>> >> > > science.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject
>> >> > > to belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such
>> >> > > thing as "macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the
>> >> > > observed fact of evolution and a number of closely related
>> >> > > theories which attempt to describe the observed phenomena.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
>> >> > > your cult masters program into you.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then
>> >> > I will simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see
>> >> > is *change*
>> >> withins
>> >> > kinds or families.
>> >>
>> >> Evolution is change. Also, can you tell us what is your defintion
>> >> of "kind"?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Change is not necessarly upward or downward, just change.
>> >>
>> >> Evolution is not an upward, or downward process.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The word change and evolution are definitely not the same idea
>> >> > in
>> >> sceintific
>> >> > circles.
>> >>
>> >> Evolution, in the strictest sense, means change in the genetic
>> >> make up of
>> > a
>> >> population over generations. Any change in an organism is not
>> >> evolution, but evolution is most definitely change.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
>> >> > one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
>> >>
>> >> Basically, that is the whole debate. Organisms change over time,
>> >> even Creationists can no longer deny that. Now they are just
>> >> trying to say "This far and no farther". Evolution is a
>> >> scientific fact, Creationists are just trying to limit the amount
>> >> of evolution so they don't have to
>> > admit
>> >> our relationship with the rest of nature.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Creationists have never denied change, that is a total strawman.
>>
>> Not really. Creationists assert there is some kind of sharp limit to
>> the amount of change possible, with no evidence to back that remark.
>>
>> > What
>> > they have *always* said is there is no crossover between kinds.
>>
>> Yet "kind" mysteriously changes when evidence to falsify the last
>> definition comes to light, usually to a higher order in the standard
>> classification system. Probably they are banking on the fact that
>> eventually the enormous amount of time required will make it all but
>> impossible to observe the entire process as speciation events.
>>
>> > The
>> > closest group in sceintific terms is the branch family. No
>> > observable change has been made between kinds.
>>
>> Will you admit you are wrong with examples or not?
>>
>> Second, you are aware that the definition of macroevolution is
>> spciation, yes?
>
>
>
> If evolution was thought of only as speciation, no one would argue.
That's not what I wasked.
Were you aware of the definition of macroevolution or not?
> Show me some examples!!
>
>
>
>
Roadrunner
Assumption is no evidence in my opinion. That's religion. .-)
Roadrunner
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
Still buildings, no? The relevance to macro evolution?
>
> Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot" of
a
> organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual fossils, we
> can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms. It
> doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change, just a
> recongnition that change has occured.
And that's exactly we can not do, we can assume it, but that's about all.
To change as per macro evolution, you have to gain new information, this as
far as I know has not been observed. You are still in the assuming
business, i.e. religious grounds.
Roadrunner
"SD Anderson" <10225...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ad847902.04042...@posting.google.com...
That's no science. Creationists basically base this on that what has been
observed, and so you have to split it into micro and macro. To become macro
you have to gain new information.
Roadrunner
> Roadrunner wrote:
>
> > "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d58e3ac.04042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Indeed it is in fact an obstacle to believe one knows something when one
> > doesn't. This is how things tend to get stuck as that something is not
even
> > subject to consideration. This is all waht dogma is about.
>
> That's dogma, spelled e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.
You don't understand, do you?
eNo
> "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in message
> news:108gdk6...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> snipping
>
>
>>Dana, genetics prove nothing,
>
>
> That's odd, in court genetic evidence can send a man to a lethal injection,
> or determine paternity beyond a reasonable doubt.
And as someone else points out, his careless statement is a rather messy
shotgun blast into his ID foot :).
>>you would expect similar creatures to have
>>similar genetics whether they had common descent or design.
>
>
> Why? That doesn't make sense. A designer would not be required to use the
> same genetic pattern for all his or her creations. Nor is there any reason
> to put the same broken genes and pseudogenes in the same linage. Humans
> and other apes share the same broken gene for vitamin C production, as just
> one example.
This is an excellent question, but it depends on the assumption that
this supposed designer _necessarily_ passed on bad code to [for the sake
of argument only] parallel designs. What if the designer made good
[similar] code for humans and apes, but over the centuries, being
exposed to the same or similar environments, these two groups
experienced a similar break-down in code? I'm not buying into this, just
playing devil's advocate by positing that similar designs might drift in
similar directions provided they are exposed to similar stimuli (i.e., a
Ford and a Chevy might rust in very similar ways when parked in adjacent
stalls by the beach). The alternative, is to take broken genes as a
"feature," an argument often made by software developers when blushing
at the discovery of a bug. But sometimes, it is true that a perceived
bug is a feature. Maybe the designer had some very good reason for
breaking down the Vitamin C gene, like say, giving an incentive to both
apes and humans to eat their fruits and vegetables, and thus keep them
regular, with the added bonus of keeping the fruit/vegetable plant
population in equilibrium.
>>It appears that
>>it is in the ability to breed that the classification of kinds is taken.
>
>
> It appears to whom? "Kind" has no real definition, and creationists have
> failed to provide any solid explanation why this should be. If there
> really were a uncrossible "kind" barrier, then it should be very easy to
> provide a clear cut definition of "kind". Creationists should be able to
> provide a testable concept of "kind" that science is able make use of.
> That they haven't is a good indication that "kind" does not really exist.
As I said elsewhere, I too would like a definition of kinds. Randy seems
to be bounding the definition to ability to breed, which would be
testable, I guess, for non-extinct (oh, geez, what do I call them now?)
<insert term here>. No one else seems to be buying it.
>>The dna program
>>given by the creator will only allow migrations within breedable kinds,
>>thats it.
>
> But the genetic, mophological, biochemical, and biogeographical evidence
> shows no evidence of a barrier. "Breedable kinds" has no clear meaning, and
> is worthless as a scientific concept. Organisms normally only breed within
> species, hybrids between species in the same genus are rare. They are
> almost non-existant between distantly related speices in the same family,
> without direct interference by humans. Clearly "family" is not anywhere
> near "kind".
Oops, spoke too soon up there. So "breedable kinds" isn't testable. I
stand corrected.
--
øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪøĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš
eNo
"If you can't go fast, go long."
øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš°`°šĪøĪš°`°šĪø,,,,øĪš
Roadrunner
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > snipping
> > >
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > closest group in sceintific terms is the branch family. No
> > observable
> > > > > > change has been made between kinds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will you admit you are wrong with examples or not?
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, you are aware that the definition of macroevolution is
> > > spciation,
> > > > > yes?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If evolution was thought of only as speciation, no one would argue.
> > >
> > > Do you want examples of speciation? No problem
> > >
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> > > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
> >
> > No creationist have ever claimed that there isnt change within species.
>
> Are you now equating "kind" with species?
>
> You don't seem to realize, the above are not changes within species. They
> are examples of *new* species splitting off from ancestrial populations.
> That's change within genus. Creationists, until very recently refused to
> accept speciation. Now they do so, very grudgingly.
So, is that so? We have micro and macro evolution, I don't see the problem.
One has been observed, the other not. Ever wondered why the apple tree does
not grow oranges?
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > We can also infer evolution above the family level. Please see:
> > > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds
> > > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales
> >
> >
> > In this attempt from the past you are trying to prove evolution by
> assuming
> > evolution.
>
> How so? I'm presenting you with clear evidence that change has occured
> above the level of "family". This is not assuming evolution, it's
showing
> evidence of evolution.
Sorry, you have absolutely nothing. You are basing this on religious
grounds, you have to believe this to accept as a fact.
Roadrunner
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
You would agree that thye are quite different, no? Now who cares about some
2%, who cares. You have to deal with what you observe. No argument, sorry.
>
>
> >The dna program
> > given by the creator will only allow migrations within breedable kinds,
> > thats it.
>
>
> But the genetic, mophological, biochemical, and biogeographical evidence
> shows no evidence of a barrier.
They do not gain new information. And you need lots and lots of them to
make macro evolution a fact. And then in the end if man some day could do
this, it will be man's creation, it's ridiculous to assume then that we,
this universe just happened......
Tom
"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:D_Xhc.90559$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
Good try Dana. I've seen you take "Pastor"Dave down with solid non-refutable
arguments, all the while showing great patience and class. Unfortunately
Roadrunner is unable to grasp even the most elementary principles. Therefore
I give to Roadrunner my top award:
*PLONK*
John Wilkins
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Hank posted in article
> <40880AB3...@Company.com>...
> > Randy Story wrote:
> >
> > > "Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns94D344F50A69F...@24.93.44.119...
> > > > "Randy Story" <rsto...@olypen.com> wrote in
> > > > news:108elr9...@corp.supernews.com:
> > > >
> > > > > Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
> > > > > simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
> > > > > withins kinds or families.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
> > >
> > > It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
> > > outside families.
> >
> > And what part of West Virginia are you from? (Aw hell somebody had to say
> > it.)
>
> I was thinking eastern Kentucky...
>
> Beyond that -- I'd like him to describe the organisms that for the least
> part *do* breed outside of families.
Endosymbiotic capture? Commensualism in lichens? I'm trying...
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Eric Gill
news:D_Xhc.90559$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net:
And yet Randy just denied that this is the Creationist definition of
"macroevolution."
Thanks, Clamrunner. We can always count on you.
> Ever wondered why the
> apple tree does not grow oranges?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > We can also infer evolution above the family level. Please see:
>> > > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds
>> > > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales
>> >
>> >
>> > In this attempt from the past you are trying to prove evolution by
>> assuming
>> > evolution.
>>
>> How so? I'm presenting you with clear evidence that change has
>> occured above the level of "family". This is not assuming
>> evolution, it's
> showing
>> evidence of evolution.
>
> Sorry, you have absolutely nothing.
...as long as you completely disregard the objective evidence, that would
be a true statement.
> You are basing this on religious
> grounds, you have to believe this to accept as a fact.
Ah - Clamrunner. Ever the hypocritical parrot.
Where's that open mind you rant on about?
RobinGoodfellow
[snip]
>>>Definitions:
>>>Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
>>> overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
>>>Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
>>> reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
>>
>> Micro-evolution: a term invented by creationists for the purpose of
>>misleading potential converts into thinking the principle of natural
>>selection is incapable of breaking the Species barrier.
>
>
> That's no science. Creationists basically base this on that what has been
> observed, and so you have to split it into micro and macro. To become macro
> you have to gain new information.
>
Oh, goody! RoadRunner just learned a new word! Would you share your
knowledge with the rest of us? What is this "information", RoadRunner?
Matt Davis
> They do not gain new information. And you need lots and lots of them to
> make macro evolution a fact. And then in the end if man some day could do
> this, it will be man's creation, it's ridiculous to assume then that we,
> this universe just happened......
Hold it right there. New information? What is "new information" in this
context and why do you say that it cannot be gained?
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time. The
fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there. I assume that the
animal kingdom was much fuller at creation since many species are dying of
each day. You can not assume anything in the fossil record if you wish to be
open minded. They are just dead critters, how they died is the question,
over a long time or very fast.
Matt Davis
Roadrunner... where were the whales back before there were dinosaurs? The
fossil record indicates that at one point, there were no whales as we see
them today. In fact, the fossil record indicates that there was a time
when there was nothing that looked remotely like a modern whale today.
Where did the whales come from?
>> Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot" of
> a
>> organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual fossils, we
>> can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms. It
>> doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change, just a
>> recongnition that change has occured.
>
> And that's exactly we can not do, we can assume it, but that's about all.
> To change as per macro evolution, you have to gain new information, this as
> far as I know has not been observed. You are still in the assuming
> business, i.e. religious grounds.
Again, you're failing to distinguish between a conclusion and an
assumption. The fossil record shows us that there are animals that exist
now that did not exist in the past. Where did they come from? That fact,
combined with the fact that there are often records of transitions between
old animals and new animals, it seems like a good conclusion. Do you have
a better conclusion?
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > snipping
> > >
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > closest group in sceintific terms is the branch family. No
> > observable
> > > > > > change has been made between kinds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will you admit you are wrong with examples or not?
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, you are aware that the definition of macroevolution is
> > > spciation,
> > > > > yes?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If evolution was thought of only as speciation, no one would argue.
> > > > Show me some examples!!
> > >
> > > Do you want examples of speciation? No problem
> > >
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> > > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
> >
> > No creationist have ever claimed that there isnt change within species.
>
> Are you now equating "kind" with species?
>
> You don't seem to realize, the above are not changes within species. They
> are examples of *new* species splitting off from ancestrial populations.
> That's change within genus. Creationists, until very recently refused to
> accept speciation. Now they do so, very grudgingly.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds
> > > http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales
> >
> >
> > In this attempt from the past you are trying to prove evolution by
> assuming
> > evolution.
>
> How so? I'm presenting you with clear evidence that change has occured
> above the level of "family". This is not assuming evolution, it's
showing
> evidence of evolution.
You can not use fossils that you did not see deposited and assume long
time periods, this is circular. Evolutionists believe in long time periods
with no evidence for such. I believe in a short time periods with much
evidence for such. Evolution is simply a fraud.
Lets take an example, the ever popular fruit fly. its breed 22.5 times
faster then humans and add to that fact sceintists by using x-ray have speed
up mutation rates by 15,000 times in order to see evolution at work. That
means that mutations are at the level of 337,500 generations in just one
year. This equates to 15,000 generations of human which equates to the
equilivent of 225,000 evolutionary years if each generation was only 15
years old when they reproduced.
Since we have studied these critters for at least 50 years this equates
to 11, 250,000 years in time for human evolution.
Guess what, these fruit flies are still *just* fruit flies.
A miserable failure for evolution.
Randy Story
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@Nospam.com> wrote in message
Required of course not, but if all creatures share the best design for the
purpose of the creator why would he want to change what works. Remember it
is the diferences that make the difference, not the similarities.
As far as problems in the genetic code, it is called the fall of man which
brought corruption into the world.
Zachriel
<snip>
> You can not use fossils that you did not see deposited and assume long
> time periods, this is circular. Evolutionists believe in long time periods
> with no evidence for such. I believe in a short time periods with much
> evidence for such. Evolution is simply a fraud.
Let's see. You assert that the entire geological community is wrong about
the deposition of strata over eons of time, and so biological evolution is
wrong.
> Lets take an example, the ever popular fruit fly.
And the evidence you present is the breeding of fruit flies.
Can you try to form a coherent argument?
Eric Gill
That was not the evidence he presented.
Are you able to address that or not?
> Evolutionists believe in long time
> periods with no evidence for such. I believe in a short time periods
> with much evidence for such.
And are you able to present any of it?
Yes or no?
<snip>
Eric Gill
<snip>
> Required of course not, but if all creatures share the best design for
> the purpose of the creator
How do you test for that?
> why would he want to change what works.
> Remember it is the diferences that make the difference, not the
> similarities. As far as problems in the genetic code, it is called the
> fall of man which brought corruption into the world.
Will you then please explain why the optic nerve is wired to the *front* of
the eye, obsuring part of it?
You assertion is nothing new, but no one has ever been able to describe how
*sin* pulled the nerve off the back and stuck it on the front.
Please.
Eric Gill
As long as you mean "all the available evidence points to the fossilized
creatures we've found living at different times" when you say "assume".
> The fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
Why do you presume that?
> I assume
> that the animal kingdom was much fuller at creation since many species
> are dying of each day.
Why?
> You can not assume anything in the fossil
> record if you wish to be open minded. They are just dead critters, how
> they died is the question, over a long time or very fast.
But you have just said you are *not* open minded on the subject. Why
should you bring it up now?