Does evolutionism have a specific definition
jrh
fact and faith of evolution, evolutionist are
prevented from seeing evidence that contradicts
their preconceived ideas.
From: AC <mightym...@hotmail.com>
> Of course it does. The simplest way to put it is simply
> change in allele frequency over time.
This is not evolutionism, it is a stipulated fact,
the "belief" depends on.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism.html
> Evolutionism:
> sometimes called Total Evolutionism or transformism;
> belief in [agnostic or atheistic] Evolution;
> Evolutionism generally teaches that the creatures of today
> gradually developed into existence through billions of years of
> [natural processes], and that all present life has descended
> from one (or a few) original forms(s).
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Hank <Ha...@application.com>
> This is an interesting slight-of-hand. By adding the -ism,
> this perpetuates the false claim that only Godless atheists
> and agnostics believe in evolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------
evolutionism (the philosophy) is defined (evolution the)
non-philosophy (by evolutionists).
From: Hank <Ha...@application.com>
> Another dishonest statement. Evolution is defined by science using
> scientific terms. Why do these self-proclaimed "Christians" use
> such dishonest mechanisms? If it's all the same to you I'll use
> science's definition; at least it doesn't contain any lies.
you just proved the point again
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net>
> No, because it was made up by Creationists. That is why
> I put it in quotes.
Did "evolutionist propaganda" lead you to believe that,
or did you just "make it up"?
------------------------------------------------------------
An example of good work with an honest separation of conjecture from fact.
> http://www.davidjobson.com/journal.html
> 1."Modern skulls house a stone age mind."
> This is a catchy way of conveying the
> idea ( not fact )
> that human evolution occurred in a very different environment to the one in
> which we now live.
> Human's evolution is
> thought ( not known )
> to have started 68-million years ago when we diverged from our primate
> ancestors.
> Evolutionary psychologists
> believe ( not know )
> that natural selection designed our minds for life in an environment
> resembling the African savannah, in which our hunter-gatherer ancestors
lived
> for thousands of years.
> For 99% of our evolutionary history we
> probably ( not did )
> lived in hunter-gatherer societies.
The study of evolution is science.
There is nothing evil in the belief in
Evolutionism, but it is philosophy not science.
Those who blur the distinction, only blind themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/ev/evolutionism162198.html
> Evolutionism
> (n.) The theory of, or belief in, evolution.
> Evolution
> (n.) That series of changes under natural law which involves
> continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous
> in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse
> and manifold in quality or function. The process is by some
> limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the
> inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain
> the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language,
> civilization, and every product of human activity.
> The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained
> by different philosophers.
Interesting, philosophers are the source of philosophy, this
must be another creationist lie.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: papa_...@hotmail.com (VoiceOfReason)
> "Evolutionism" is a Creationist construct that tries to claim
> that evolution is based on philosophy. It's not - it's part of
> the science of biology. Yet another Creationist lie.
The ignorant are quick to falsely accuse, and slow, oh so slow
to acknowledge their error.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins)
> The word evolutionism was not made up by creationists. It applied to the
> views of (mosty Lamarckian progressivist) thinkers at the turn of the
> 20thC. People like Bergson, who was about as far from a Darwinian view
> as one could get and still be classed as an evolutionary thinker.
Thanks for the honesty as to who coined the word. Hopefully at
some point you will begin to recognize the difference between
"faith in evolution" and what has been proven true.
jrh
jrh
Boikat
"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
like religion".
> evolutionist are
> prevented from seeing evidence that contradicts
> their preconceived ideas.
What evidence would that be?
>
<snip>
Boikat
Tom
> fact and faith of evolution, evolutionist are
> prevented from seeing evidence that contradicts
> their preconceived ideas.
I haven't seen any real scientific evidence against evolution? Do you have
any?
<large snip>
John Ings
>> The word evolutionism was not made up by creationists. It applied to the
>> views of (mosty Lamarckian progressivist) thinkers at the turn of the
>> 20thC. People like Bergson, who was about as far from a Darwinian view
>> as one could get and still be classed as an evolutionary thinker.
However the word may have originated, its usage and meaning have
changed in the mouths of the Creationists.
>Thanks for the honesty as to who coined the word. Hopefully at
>some point you will begin to recognize the difference between
>"faith in evolution" and what has been proven true.
Hopefully you will realize that "evolution" = "science" in the mind of
the fundy bibliolator. The word is used to label all who deny the
Biblical account of creation, and that goes way beyond the biologists
and geneticists who argue evolution of species. The geologists
discovered the earth is very old long before Darwin's time, so the
evolution of the earth is included in the term "evolutionism". The
physicist backs up the geologist with radiometrication, so to the
fundy Genesis 1 idolater physicists are "eeeevilooshunists" also.
The astronomer and the cosmologist too are evolutionists since they
speak of the evolution of the cosmos. Indeed these days there is
hardly a scientific discipline, from archaeology to Zoology that does
not is some way confront and deny the ignorant scribblings in the
Bible.
So "evolutionism" is synonymous with "science" as the word is used by
the modern Creationist.
## The mind of the Creationist is like concrete: Mixed up and set.
Pastor Dave
<boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> fact and faith of evolution....
>
>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>like religion".
Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
Yet it is fact, right?
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory.
Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
belief in special creation. Both are concepts
which believers know to be true, but neither,
up to the present, has been capable of proof.
- L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
David Jensen
wrote in <39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
><boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
>>
>>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>>> fact and faith of evolution....
>>
>>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>>like religion".
>
>Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
>single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>Yet it is fact, right?
Your question shows a profound ignorance of science and misunderstanding
of evolution.
Boikat
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
> >
> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> >> fact and faith of evolution....
> >
> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack
of
> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that
you
> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts
to
> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief
system,
> >like religion".
>
> Have you seen apes turning into men?
Add to the above lack of understanding of the meaning and understanding of
"fact, faith, and lack of objectivity", asinine expectations.
> Is there even one
> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> Yet it is fact, right?
It's infered from the *evidence*, of the fossils that *have been* found.
It's also infered from morphology, DNA, biogeographical distribution, and
temporal distribution of species. Multiple, independent lines of evidence
that are consistantly, realistically, and objectively explained by the ToE.
Only someone who is ignorant of the difficulties in fossilization think that
there is a continious gradual sucession of fossils. Only someone who seeks
to bolster their denial of the facts that do exist, expect there *should* be
a continious fossil record.
Boikat
Noelie S. Alito
Rather, since some science is ok, "evolutionism" is synonymous with
"any science that threatens my personal religious views". (As I have
pointed out before, a twisted understanding of the godless science of
thermodynamics is used to attack a twisted understanding of the godless
science of biological diversification.)
Noelie
--
Developmental biologists would have us believe the ridiculous notion
that the trillions of cells of a person all descended from one fertilized egg.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Have you seen apes turning into men?
Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the term.
> Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
Why or why not?
> Yet it is fact, right?
If evidence means anything, yes.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
AC
> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> fact and faith of evolution, evolutionist are
> prevented from seeing evidence that contradicts
> their preconceived ideas.
This from a guy who is apparently ignorant of the actual science.
>
> From: AC <mightym...@hotmail.com>
>> Of course it does. The simplest way to put it is simply
>> change in allele frequency over time.
> This is not evolutionism, it is a stipulated fact,
> the "belief" depends on.
It is a core definition of evolution. I'm sorry that you know so very
little of the science you pretend to be able to critique. I'm sorry that
you are too frightened to familiarize yourself with the actual work of
researchers, rather than the dishonest blatherings of Creationist sites.
Just as long as you stay far away from my kids' school, you can believe
anything you please.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
><boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
>>
>>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>>> fact and faith of evolution....
>>
>>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>>like religion".
>
> Have you seen apes turning into men?
We are apes, and the fossil record demonstrates the evolution of our
ancestors over millions of years.
> Is there even one
> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> Yet it is fact, right?
You've been shown this several times.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Klaus Hellnick
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
> >
> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> >> fact and faith of evolution....
> >
> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack
of
> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that
you
> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts
to
> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief
system,
> >like religion".
>
> Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
Yes there is. Try reading some science books, rather than Chick tracts.
> Yet it is fact, right?
A. Humans ARE apes.
B. There is a reasonably clear progression from Australopithicus to Homo
Sapiens.
C. There is an immense amount of fossil evidence for evolution of other
species, showing, in some instances, very "clear and gradual progression of
fossils". Why are you fixated on the Homo line? Do you not understand how
evolution works?
D. Evolution of species has been directly directly observed, in laboratories
and in nature. Are you claiming there is some mystical barrier that prevents
repeated speciation events from resulting in new Families, etc. ?
Klaus
Matt Silberstein
<nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com>:
>On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
><boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
>>
>>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>>> fact and faith of evolution....
>>
>>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>>like religion".
>
>Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
>single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>Yet it is fact, right?
Have you seen the Moon orbit the Earth? Is there even one single
clear and gradual progression of observations of the Moon going
in that orbit? No, there isn't. Yet it is a fact, right?
Have you seen a baby grow up to an Adult? Is there even one
single clear and gradual set of pictures of that baby growing up?
No, there isn't. Yet it is a fact, right?
It his desperation to attack the science of evolutionary biology,
in his despair because of his lack of any useful argument, PD
takes refuge in epistemological nihilism. He attacks the whole
notion of knowledge itself. How can PD know that the Bible in his
hand is the Bible is the Bible it was yesterday, he does not have
the photographs.
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
Dana Tweedy
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
> >
> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> >> fact and faith of evolution....
> >
> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack
of
> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that
you
> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts
to
> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief
system,
> >like religion".
>
> Have you seen apes turning into men?
Dave, humans are apes, you might as well ask have you ever seen a dog turn
into a poodle.
> Is there even one
> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
Yes, there is. See:
http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/museum/hominid/Sect1/guid01.3.html#TXT
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/
> Yet it is fact, right?
Correct.
DJT
Pastor Dave
<boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> fact and faith of evolution....
>
>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their
>lack of objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in
>logic that you just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you
>have weak attempts to cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as
>"just another belief system, like religion".
Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
this supposed common ancestor to man? Yes, there are as seen in the
fossils from the birthplace of man millions of years ago in Africa.
RS investigating creationist theme park in Pensacola
Associated Press
PENSACOLA, Fla. - Internal Revenue Service agents are investigating a man
who runs a creationist theme park and museum here, saying he owes taxes
on proceeds of more than $1 million.
IRS agents raided the homes and businesses of Kent Hovind, 51. Calling
himself "Dr. Dino," Hovind argues against evolution and for a Biblical
view of creation in travels around the world, on the Internet, videos and
in literature.
Agents on Wednesday confiscated computer and paper records of financial
activity since 1997, but no charges have been filed against Hovind. He
adamantly denied wrongdoing Friday.
In a sworn statement to obtain a search warrant, IRS agent Scott
Schneider said none of Hovind's enterprises has a business license or
tax-exempt status as a nonprofit entity.
"Since 1997, Hovind has engaged in financial transactions indicating
sources of income and has made deposits to bank accounts well in excess
of $1 million per year during some of these years, which would require
the filing of federal income taxes," Schneider said.
--
ą Pastor Dave ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Wise men study the unknown, and boldly seeks answers !
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling..
Harlequin
> "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
> and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
> being a science founded on an unproved theory.
> Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
> theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
> belief in special creation. Both are concepts
> which believers know to be true, but neither,
> up to the present, has been capable of proof.
> - L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
> the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
> of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
> the Preservation of Favored Races in the
> Struggle for Life
I seen this quote before. And to my surprise it does not
appear to be in the QMP. (I did see another quote
from another person's into to yet another edition of
_Origin_.) This edition does not appear to be
in a library local to me. But it has to be local
to someone in the newsgroup. Anyone within easy
access to a large metropolitan library or a
university library is encouraged to see if they have
this one.
I see that catshark asked on March 5 but it does
not seem to have gone anywhere possibly because
it was large thread. Various evolution
deniers have used it here: Pastor Dave, Skywise, Ed
Conrad, etc.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...I think that science would have never have achieved much
progress if it had always imagined unknown obstacles hidden
round every corner."
- Arthur Eddington, _Stars and Atoms_, 1929, p. 20.
Boikat
"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94E470207CD9Cno...@130.133.1.4...
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
> >
> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> >> fact and faith of evolution....
> >
> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their
> >lack of objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in
> >logic that you just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you
> >have weak attempts to cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as
> >"just another belief system, like religion".
>
> Have you seen apes turning into men?
I do not have to, since there is ample evidence that humans and apes evolved
from a common ancestor (and humans are considered "apes" anyway).
> Is there even one
> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> this supposed common ancestor to man?
The fossils discovered so far are sufficient to show this is likely. A
continious "gradual progression" is only required by those who are
frightened by the aspect that their personal religious beliefs are
threatened.
> Yes, there are as seen in the
> fossils from the birthplace of man millions of years ago in Africa.
So, what's your problem again?
>
>
> RS investigating creationist theme park in Pensacola
<snip>
Good on the IRS. What did that have to do with anything in this topic?
Boikat
Mark VandeWettering
> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the fact and faith
> of evolution, evolutionist are prevented from seeing evidence that
> contradicts their preconceived ideas.
Physician, heal thyself.
Mark
VoiceOfReason
> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> fact and faith of evolution, evolutionist are
> prevented from seeing evidence that contradicts
> their preconceived ideas.
By refusing to acknowledge that science is based on fact, not faith,
Creationists fail to understand why science ignores them. Learn about
the scientific method, the meaning of a well-formed hypothesis and the
crucial importance of evidence; then you will understand why
Creationism is not science.
A good place to start is the "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory" FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
For a good overview of what evolutionary biology is (and isn't) try
the "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" FAQ at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
As far as the rest of the post, I'll not address the practice of
pulling statements out of context to try to support a weak position.
Roadrunner
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.09....@mail.utexas.edu...
> On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> > Have you seen apes turning into men?
>
> Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the term.
>
>
> > Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> > this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>
> How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
>
> Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
See, that doesn't automatically have to mean you ARE related, does it now?
Roadrunner
"Klaus Hellnick" <khellni...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Masnc.72246$NR5....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Back to Darwin, no? I think any 6-year old would say that they are not.
> B. There is a reasonably clear progression from Australopithicus to Homo
> Sapiens.
It does not mean they ARE progressions.......
> C. There is an immense amount of fossil evidence for evolution of other
> species, showing, in some instances, very "clear and gradual progression
of
> fossils". Why are you fixated on the Homo line? Do you not understand how
> evolution works?
I think we do, however it's the I have to assume part that we do not like
very much.
> D. Evolution of species has been directly directly observed, in
laboratories
> and in nature. Are you claiming there is some mystical barrier that
prevents
> repeated speciation events from resulting in new Families, etc. ?
You don't have to go into some laboratory for that, it suffice to take some
dogs and play around with them. Still dogs though....
VoiceOfReason
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
> >
> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> >> fact and faith of evolution....
> >
> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
> >like religion".
>
> Have you seen apes turning into men?
I assume you mean like gorillas or chimps giving birth to homo
sapiens. No, but if you ever see such a thing happen, make note of
it. Since evolution predicts that such an event cannot happen, seeing
it happen would falsify evolution.
> Is there even one
> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> Yet it is fact, right?
IIRC, there is not (yet) a definitive lineage of the hominid family
tree (others correct me if I'm behind). However, there is ample
evidence (fossil and DNA) to treat our own evolution as a fact. To
learn more about it see the "Hominid Species FAQ" at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
> --
>
> ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
Just curious - what denomination are you a pastor for? Does your
denomination require a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Roadrunner
"Matt Silberstein" <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:b1ks90d64nqqc6qm3...@4ax.com...
This is your evidence for evolution taking place? Great.
Phil Roberts
his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
> This is your evidence for evolution taking place? Great.
>
And thus your utter ignorance of what constututes evidence is shown
once again. The example given was satirical, it was not intended as
evidence. But served to illustrate the stupidity of the "have you
ever seen apes turning into men" comment.
Frankly I doubt even you could be so stupid as to think otherwise.
Which begs the question of why you bothered replying in the first
place other than to score yet another point on the strawman tree.
--
Phil Roberts | Without me its just aweso. | http://www.flatnet.net/
Phil Roberts
towards his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
>> How many generations back can you trace your ancestors'
>> skeletons?
>>
>> Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
>
> See, that doesn't automatically have to mean you ARE related,
> does it now?
>
But the absense of directly traceable remains doesn't mean that you
are NOT.
When will fundies learn that an absense of an answer does not
automatically prove you right about anything?
Phil Roberts
towards his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
> Back to Darwin, no? I think any 6-year old would say that they
> are not.
>
I think that your maturity and intelligence level must be on a par
with a 6 year old if you honestly think that bears any relevence to
anything.
The average 6 year old knows nothing of geology, physics, chemistry,
biology or any other sciences. Their thoughts on any matters of
science are utterly irrelevent as they do not have the knowledge,
experience nor logical reasoning ability to make educated judgements.
Neither, it would appear, do you.
Dave Oldridge
> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> fact and faith of evolution, evolutionist are
> prevented from seeing evidence that contradicts
> their preconceived ideas.
You might get further with this line of argument if you could manage to be
specific about WHAT ideas you consider to be preconceived and about what
actual physical evidence contradicts them.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Boikat
"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:WGunc.92095$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
The sound of the point soaring over your pointy little head, noted.
>
>
> >
> > It his desperation to attack the science of evolutionary biology,
> > in his despair because of his lack of any useful argument, PD
> > takes refuge in epistemological nihilism. He attacks the whole
> > notion of knowledge itself. How can PD know that the Bible in his
> > hand is the Bible is the Bible it was yesterday, he does not have
> > the photographs.
And RR hides behind willful ignroance. Or is it simple stupidity
Boikat
Matt Silberstein
<peg...@privat.utfors.se>:
Did you really not understand the analogy? I feel so sorry for
you. I will try to make it as clear as I can. I was not making an
argument for evolution (nor is the above evidence for evolution).
I was refuting PD's argument. He asserted, at least implicitly,
that without a gradual (by which he probably means fine grained)
sequence of fossils connection humans and "apes" we can't know
that human descended from "apes". I simply gave examples of other
instances where one could claim we lacked a similar "gradual" set
of evidence, but we accept the transition.
Were I arguing for evolution I would probably have pointed out we
have some pretty good fossil evidence and that we don't have any
reason to expect that we would have much more. I would point out
how small the chance is of any organism (or population or
species) leaving a fossil. I would then point out that we have
plenty other evidence for the common descent of all life on
Earth, including that chimps and gorillas and humans share a
common ancestor, one more recent than we share with gibbons and
orangutans, which is more recent than the one we share with
monkeys. I would point to the evidence from comparative
morphology (do you know what that word means?) and comparative
genetics. I would point to the millions and millions of pieces of
evidence pointing to common descent, a pattern of similarity that
the human and chimp and gorilla data fits right in and forms a
small part.
>>
>> It his desperation to attack the science of evolutionary biology,
>> in his despair because of his lack of any useful argument, PD
>> takes refuge in epistemological nihilism. He attacks the whole
>> notion of knowledge itself. How can PD know that the Bible in his
>> hand is the Bible is the Bible it was yesterday, he does not have
>> the photographs.
I suspect you also
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.05.09....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>> > Have you seen apes turning into men?
>>
>> Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the
>> term.
>>
>>
>> > Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils,
>> > from this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>
>> How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
>>
>> Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
>
> See, that doesn't automatically have to mean you ARE related, does it
> now?
No one claims that the gaps are proof of relatedness.
R.Schenck
> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> fact and faith of evolution,
What is the faith of evolution then?
> evolutionist are
> prevented from seeing evidence that contradicts
> their preconceived ideas.
What is the evidence then? You are saying they are prevented from seeing
it because of their preconceived notions. THis would indicate that one
must have the preconceived notion that evolution doesn't occur in order
to see the evidence. What is the evidence against evolution? What is
the theory of creationism, if its a science, which you imply by saying
its based on evidence? Why is the 'faith' of creationism better than the
'faith' of evolutionism (which, of course, doesn't even exist)
>
> From: AC <mightym...@hotmail.com>
>> Of course it does. The simplest way to put it is simply
>> change in allele frequency over time.
> This is not evolutionism, it is a stipulated fact,
> the "belief" depends on.
What is evolution then if not that populations of organisms change over
time then eh?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism.html
>> Evolutionism:
>> sometimes called Total Evolutionism or transformism;
>> belief in [agnostic or atheistic] Evolution;
>> Evolutionism generally teaches that the creatures of today
>> gradually developed into existence through billions of years of
>> [natural processes], and that all present life has descended
>> from one (or a few) original forms(s).
This is not evolutionism, this is science, this is evolution. There is
no faith involved here, its purely scientific.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Hank <Ha...@application.com>
>> This is an interesting slight-of-hand. By adding the -ism,
>> this perpetuates the false claim that only Godless atheists
>> and agnostics believe in evolution.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> evolutionism (the philosophy) is defined (evolution the)
> non-philosophy (by evolutionists).
What? This is jibberish. Are you trying to say that evolutionism is a
philosophical extension of evolutionary science? What part of
evolution'ism' isn't scientific? Which part isn't based on evidence?
Hell, which part is contradicted by the evidence? What evidence supports
creationism?
> From: Hank <Ha...@application.com>
>> Another dishonest statement. Evolution is defined by science using
>> scientific terms. Why do these self-proclaimed "Christians" use
>> such dishonest mechanisms? If it's all the same to you I'll use
>> science's definition; at least it doesn't contain any lies.
> you just proved the point again
I don't know about that but you have proved the point that creationists
are either unable to understand the topic at hand or intellectually
dishonest.
snip
> An example of good work with an honest separation of conjecture from
> fact.
>> http://www.davidjobson.com/journal.html
>> 1."Modern skulls house a stone age mind."
>> This is a catchy way of conveying the
>> idea ( not fact )
>> that human evolution occurred in a very different environment to the
>> one in which we now live.
>> Human's evolution is
>> thought ( not known )
>> to have started 68-million years ago when we diverged from our
>> primate ancestors.
>> Evolutionary psychologists
>> believe ( not know )
>> that natural selection designed our minds for life in an environment
>> resembling the African savannah, in which our hunter-gatherer
>> ancestors
> lived
>> for thousands of years.
>> For 99% of our evolutionary history we
>> probably ( not did )
>> lived in hunter-gatherer societies.
>
you have tried to use the tired tactic of highlighting cautious
statements about the particular pathways involved to criticize evolution
as a whole. In doing so you have also failed to present any evidence for
scientific creationism or any evidence against evolution or even a
logical/argumental problem with evolution.
> The study of evolution is science.
> There is nothing evil in the belief in
> Evolutionism, but it is philosophy not science.
> Those who blur the distinction, only blind themselves.
You apparently have blinded -yourself- into thinking that because
scientists can somtimes talk in hypotheticals that they aer somhow
engaging in philosophy. And you also said that there was evidence for a
scientific cretionism? Where is it?
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/ev/evolutionism162198.html
>> Evolutionism
>> (n.) The theory of, or belief in, evolution.
just because its written down doesn't mean its true. And you should also
notice that teh term evolutionism defined above is a synonym for
evolution, not, as you said, philosophical extensions from it.
>> Evolution
>> (n.) That series of changes under natural law which involves
>> continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous
>> in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse
>> and manifold in quality or function. The process is by some
>> limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the
>> inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain
>> the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language,
>> civilization, and every product of human activity.
>> The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained
>> by different philosophers.
> Interesting, philosophers are the source of philosophy, this
> must be another creationist lie.
'Evolution', the word, has had several different meanings and several
different uses. At one time the process of individual development was
refered to as 'evolution', simply because at that time that was what the
word meant. If you are having such a hard time understanding what is
being discussed in this forum then you should probably try reading more
of it. What is under considereation here is, generally, biological
evolution. Sometimes people like to talk about cosmological evolution.
Sometimes they like to talk about the evolution of ideas. Other times
they like to talk about the evolution of whatever. But if you think that
an arguement against cosmological evolution is somehow an arguement
agaist biological evolution or that evidence against, 'the growth of
institutions' (as per above) somehow invalidates biological evolution
then you are seriously mistaken. Please explain why evidence with
respect to the evolution of the american government is relevant to
theories and facts about the evolution of mammals, since this is what you
are claiming in the above.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: papa_...@hotmail.com (VoiceOfReason)
>> "Evolutionism" is a Creationist construct that tries to claim
>> that evolution is based on philosophy. It's not - it's part of
>> the science of biology. Yet another Creationist lie.
>
> The ignorant are quick to falsely accuse, and slow, oh so slow
> to acknowledge their error.
...
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins)
>> The word evolutionism was not made up by creationists. It applied to
>> the views of (mosty Lamarckian progressivist) thinkers at the turn of
>> the 20thC. People like Bergson, who was about as far from a Darwinian
>> view as one could get and still be classed as an evolutionary
>> thinker.
>
> Thanks for the honesty as to who coined the word.
More lurking, again, is recommended if you are surprised that wilkins has
a better understanding and more studied knowledge about the history of
evolutionary ideas than most people in this group.
Also, you shoudl notice then that using 'evolutionism' now would be a bit
like refereing to american fans of manchester united as 'toryies' or
republicans as 'whigs'. IOW, outdated, inaccurate, and misleading.
I also just realized that you have demonstrated that you aren't even
paying attention to what you are saying. You said that 'evolutionism' is
a philosophical system that is an extention of the modern science of
evolution, but that is hardly what mr. wilkins has stated it as and you
have agreed with it as being. So which is it, is evolutionism a
philosophical 'extenstion' of darwin's theory of evolution occuring by a
mechanism of natural selection, or is it something in line with chevalier
de lamarck's ideas? What -were- those ideas, if thats how you want to
put it?
> Hopefully at
> some point you will begin to recognize the difference between
> "faith in evolution" and what has been proven true.
What then has not been 'proven to be true' wrt evolution? And, unless
you want to get into some stupid arguement about 'science doesn't
proooooove anything', then lets just be frank and say what does
'evolutionism' hold as true in the same way that physics and chemistry
hold as true that isn't?
>
> jrh
>
>
R.Schenck
ah, the fake pastor dave. wonderful.
John Wilkins
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 09:50:15 +0000 (UTC), n...@spam.com (jrh) wrote:
>
> >> The word evolutionism was not made up by creationists. It applied to
> >> the views of (mosty Lamarckian progressivist) thinkers at the turn of
> >> the 20thC. People like Bergson, who was about as far from a Darwinian
> >> view as one could get and still be classed as an evolutionary thinker.
>
> However the word may have originated, its usage and meaning have
> changed in the mouths of the Creationists.
Yes it has. That is why I wrote the Evolution and Philosophy FAQ, in
part to reject the idea that evolution is a philosophy. Evolutionism
bears very little resemblance to modern evolutionary theory, nor,
indeed, to the views of Darwin. It is, in fact, a continuation (as I
said in the post Nanado cribbed the above comment from) of the Great
Chain of Being philosophy of the middle ages (the *Christian* middle
ages).
But if anyone dares suggest that a species evolves, then it must mean
that it is all part of one giant conspiracy that is opposed to God and
Christ, to these guys (or in Nando's case, God and Mohammed). It is
totally stupid, anachronistic, and unnecessary.
>
> >Thanks for the honesty as to who coined the word. Hopefully at
> >some point you will begin to recognize the difference between
> >"faith in evolution" and what has been proven true.
And Nando, if you actually *read* the historical sources instead of
trawling through them for snippets that reinforce your a priori views,
you'd see that evolution is not a faith, it's science, and well
supported by facts. Faith is what you have when there are no facts.
>
> Hopefully you will realize that "evolution" = "science" in the mind of
> the fundy bibliolator. The word is used to label all who deny the
> Biblical account of creation, and that goes way beyond the biologists
> and geneticists who argue evolution of species. The geologists
> discovered the earth is very old long before Darwin's time, so the
> evolution of the earth is included in the term "evolutionism". The
> physicist backs up the geologist with radiometrication, so to the
> fundy Genesis 1 idolater physicists are "eeeevilooshunists" also.
> The astronomer and the cosmologist too are evolutionists since they
> speak of the evolution of the cosmos. Indeed these days there is
> hardly a scientific discipline, from archaeology to Zoology that does
> not is some way confront and deny the ignorant scribblings in the
> Bible.
Or the Q'uran. Or any other religious scripture that attempts to dictate
before investigation what the facts must be. Use scriptures as a source
of facts, and you are from the get-go not doing science or anything
remotely like it. If there is value in those writings, it certainly is
not as a source of scientific knowledge.
>
> So "evolutionism" is synonymous with "science" as the word is used by
> the modern Creationist.
>
> ## The mind of the Creationist is like concrete: Mixed up and set.
And frequently found under the feet of those who can move about as they
--
Dr John S. Wilkins, www.wilkins.id.au
"I never meet anyone who is not perplexed what to do with their
children" --Charles Darwin to Syms Covington, February 22, 1857
Pastor Dave
<boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>> >
>> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> >> fact and faith of evolution....
>> >
>> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack
>of
>> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that
>you
>> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts
>to
>> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief
>system,
>> >like religion".
>>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>
>Add to the above lack of understanding of the meaning and understanding of
>"fact, faith, and lack of objectivity", asinine expectations.
>
>> Is there even one
>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>> Yet it is fact, right?
>
>It's infered from the *evidence*, of the fossils that *have been* found.
>It's also infered from morphology, DNA, biogeographical distribution, and
>temporal distribution of species. Multiple, independent lines of evidence
>that are consistantly, realistically, and objectively explained by the ToE.
>Only someone who is ignorant of the difficulties in fossilization think that
>there is a continious gradual sucession of fossils. Only someone who seeks
>to bolster their denial of the facts that do exist, expect there *should* be
>a continious fossil record.
There isn't one single clear and gradual progression of
fossils, from ape to man, nor has this supposed "common
ancestor" ever been found. The fact is, you have a few
fossils, already believe in evolution and then claim
they are evidence of what you believe. It never occurs
to you that apes just might be apes and that's all.
You blame your problems on the "difficulty of
fossilization". What you're really saying, is that you
don't have the necessary fossils to prove what you
believe, but still filter every fossil through what you
believe, as if it had already been proved.
And btw, there is no such thing as DNA evidence of
evolution. Similarities denote a common designer.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.unlimitedglory.org/evcha3.htm
Pastor Dave
Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>
>Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the term.
No, they are not and calling them apes, does not make
them apes. Evolutionists call them apes, because they
believe man came from apes. That all this garbage
consists of.
>> Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>
>How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
You ask this, to try to avoid admitting that you don't
have the proof, yet claim it's reality.
>Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a
medical fact that humans come from humans. We can
watch it happen. We are discussing humans from apes.
Show me that and then you can talk.
>>Yet it is a fact, right?
>
>If evidence means anything, yes.
You just admitted that you don't have the evidence and
now you wish to claim that it is because of evidence
that you believe. Interesting.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
neither love nor patience are in order... For
a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
are in order, but only anger, dispute and
destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
Pastor Dave
<mightym...@hotmail.com> posted thusly:
>On Sun, 9 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000 (UTC),
>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>><boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>>>
>>>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>>>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>>>> fact and faith of evolution....
>>>
>>>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>>>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>>>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>>>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>>>like religion".
>>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>
>We are apes, and the fossil record demonstrates the evolution of our
>ancestors over millions of years.
That was a "NO", folks.
>> Is there even one
>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>> Yet it is fact, right?
>
>You've been shown this several times.
No, no such thing has been shown to me and we both know
that.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
If your bible is falling apart, chances are your
life is staying together.
Dave
> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> Yet it is fact, right?
>
The scary thing is this; why are there fossils at all? And good grief
why are there so many fossils? That vast number of different dinosaurs
in a mere 6000 years? Yet Noah never even mentioned them.
Pastor Dave
Hellnick" <khellni...@houston.rr.com> posted
thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>> >
>> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> >> fact and faith of evolution....
>> >
>> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack
>of
>> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that
>you
>> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts
>to
>> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief
>system,
>> >like religion".
>>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>
>Yes there is. Try reading some science books, rather than Chick tracts.
It does not exist. Only ignorant fools, or bald faced
liars claim that. If you think it does, then provide
it for us.
>> Yet it is fact, right?
>
>A. Humans ARE apes.
Why, because you call them apes?
>B. There is a reasonably clear progression from Australopithicus to Homo
>Sapiens.
No, there isn't.
>C. There is an immense amount of fossil evidence for evolution of other
>species, showing, in some instances, very "clear and gradual progression of
>fossils". Why are you fixated on the Homo line? Do you not understand how
>evolution works?
There is absolutely zero evidence for this claim.
>D. Evolution of species has been directly directly observed, in laboratories
>and in nature. Are you claiming there is some mystical barrier that prevents
>repeated speciation events from resulting in new Families, etc. ?
>Klaus
You are a liar. Microevolution is the ONLY thing that
has been observed.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://wayoflife.org/fbns/aremodern.htm
Pastor Dave
Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> posted
thusly:
>In alt.talk.creationism I read this message from Pastor Dave
><nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>><boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>>>
>>>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>>>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>>>> fact and faith of evolution....
>>>
>>>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>>>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>>>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>>>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>>>like religion".
>>
>>Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
>>single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>>this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>Yet it is fact, right?
>
>Have you seen the Moon orbit the Earth? Is there even one single
>clear and gradual progression of observations of the Moon going
>in that orbit? No, there isn't. Yet it is a fact, right?
>
>Have you seen a baby grow up to an Adult? Is there even one
>single clear and gradual set of pictures of that baby growing up?
>No, there isn't. Yet it is a fact, right?
>
>It his desperation to attack the science of evolutionary biology,
>in his despair because of his lack of any useful argument, PD
>takes refuge in epistemological nihilism. He attacks the whole
>notion of knowledge itself. How can PD know that the Bible in his
>hand is the Bible is the Bible it was yesterday, he does not have
>the photographs.
You sir, are an idiot and have proved yourself to be
one. I will not discuss this issue with you any
further.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Pastor Dave
<boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
Once again, you are arguing with an imposter. I do
find it interesting that the Bible shows life coming
from Africa. But of course, the Bible is never
scientific, right?
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
In the beginning, God created...
And He did it in six days and said
He did it in six days (Exodus 20:11).
Pastor Dave
papa_...@hotmail.com (VoiceOfReason) posted thusly:
>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>> >
>> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> >> fact and faith of evolution....
>> >
>> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>> >like religion".
>>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>
>I assume you mean like gorillas or chimps giving birth to homo
>sapiens. No, but if you ever see such a thing happen, make note of
>it. Since evolution predicts that such an event cannot happen, seeing
>it happen would falsify evolution.
You are building a straw man. But then again, Gould
would applaud your scenario.
>> Is there even one
>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>> Yet it is fact, right?
>
>IIRC, there is not (yet) a definitive lineage of the hominid family
>tree (others correct me if I'm behind). However, there is ample
>evidence (fossil and DNA) to treat our own evolution as a fact. To
>learn more about it see the "Hominid Species FAQ" at:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.htm
Oh, good examples. You know, like aferensis, which is
hotly disputed and not held by most to be an ancestor
of man anymore. That's just one example of the
outdated falsehoods you evolutionists continue to
spread as truth. But hey, we're all ears about
Haeckel's drawings. <chuckle>
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Pastor Dave
>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>
>Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the term.
Yes, they are and calling them apes, does not make
them apes. Evolutionists call them apes, because they know
man came from apes. That all this Bible garbage
consists of.
>> Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>
>How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
You ask this, to try to avoid admitting that you don't
have the proof, yet claim it's reality much like I have no proof the Bible is accurate.
>Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a
medical fact that humans come from humans. We can
watch it happen. We are discussing humans from apes.
Show me that and then you can talk. Of course yu aant' so I win--naah naah naah.
>>Yet it is a fact, right?
>
>If evidence means anything, yes.
You just admitted that you like I don't have the evidence and
now you wish to claim that it is because of evidence
that you believe.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Pastor Dave
>On Sun, 9 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000 (UTC),
>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>><boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>>>
>>>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>>>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>>>> fact and faith of evolution....
>>>
>>>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>>>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>>>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>>>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>>>like religion".
>>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>
>We are apes, and the fossil record demonstrates the evolution of our
>ancestors over millions of years.
That was a "YES", folks.
>> Is there even one
>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>> Yet it is fact, right?
>
>You've been shown this several times.
No, no such thing has been shown to me as I keep my eyes shut and fingers crossed and we both know
that.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
If your world is falling apart, chances are your religion is at fault.
Pastor Dave
gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) posted thusly:
Did Noah have to? He didn't mention lots of creatures.
So what?
As for diversity, you ignore research.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Pastor Dave
X-Comments: This message was posted through <A href
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeed.com does not condone,
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to
X-Comments3: <A href ="http://www.newsgroups.com">Visit
On Sun, 9 May 2004 15:27:19 +0000 (UTC), "Klaus
Hellnick" <khellni...@houston.rr.com> posted
thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>> >
>> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> >> fact and faith of evolution....
>> >
>> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack
>of
>> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that
>you
>> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts
>to
>> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief
>system,
>> >like religion".
>>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>
>Yes there is. Try reading some science books, rather than Chick tracts.
It does exist. Only ignorant fools like me, or bald faced
liars claim that evolution is a lie. If you think it does, then provide
it for us. I can't prove my case either.
>> Yet it is fact, right?
>
>A. Humans ARE apes.
Why, because scientists who have spent their lifetimes studying them call them apes?
>B. There is a reasonably clear progression from Australopithicus to Homo
>Sapiens.
No, there isn't according to the Bible.
>C. There is an immense amount of fossil evidence for evolution of other
>species, showing, in some instances, very "clear and gradual progression of
>fossils". Why are you fixated on the Homo line? Do you not understand how
>evolution works?
There is absolutely zero evidence for this claim and I have no basis to say this.
>D. Evolution of species has been directly directly observed, in laboratories
>and in nature. Are you claiming there is some mystical barrier that prevents
>repeated speciation events from resulting in new Families, etc. ?
>Klaus
I am a liar. Microevolution has been observed and other types of evolution are seen in the fossil record.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Truth is beauty but lies sell more books.
Pastor Dave
On Sun, 9 May 2004 15:37:54 +0000 (UTC), Matt
Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> posted
thusly:
>In alt.talk.creationism I read this message from Pastor Dave
><nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>><boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>>>
>>>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>>>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>>>> fact and faith of evolution....
>>>
>>>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>>>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>>>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>>>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>>>like religion".
>>
>>Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
>>single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>>this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>Yet it is fact, right?
>
>Have you seen the Moon orbit the Earth? Is there even one single
>clear and gradual progression of observations of the Moon going
>in that orbit? No, there isn't. Yet it is a fact, right?
>
>Have you seen a baby grow up to an Adult? Is there even one
>single clear and gradual set of pictures of that baby growing up?
>No, there isn't. Yet it is a fact, right?
>
>It his desperation to attack the science of evolutionary biology,
>in his despair because of his lack of any useful argument, PD
>takes refuge in epistemological nihilism. He attacks the whole
>notion of knowledge itself. How can PD know that the Bible in his
>hand is the Bible is the Bible it was yesterday, he does not have
>the photographs.
You and I sir, are idiots and we have proved ourselfes to be
one. I will not discuss this issue with you any
further as you are making too many good points.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Truth is great but lies sell more books.
Pastor Dave
<boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns94E470207CD9Cno...@130.133.1.4...
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>> >
>> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> >> fact and faith of evolution....
>> >
>> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their
>> >lack of objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in
>> >logic that you just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you
>> >have weak attempts to cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as
>> >"just another belief system, like religion".
>>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>
>I do not have to, since there is ample evidence that humans and apes evolved
>from a common ancestor (and humans are considered "apes" anyway).
>
>> Is there even one
>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man?
>
>The fossils discovered so far are sufficient to show this is likely. A
>continious "gradual progression" is only required by those who are
>frightened by the aspect that their personal religious beliefs are
>threatened.
>
>
>> Yes, there are as seen in the
>> fossils from the birthplace of man millions of years ago in Africa.
>
>So, what's your problem again?
Once again, you are an idiot. I do
find it interesting that the Bible shows life coming
from Africa. But of course, the Bible is never
lucky, right?
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
In the beginning, God created...a best seller
Pastor Dave
gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) posted thusly:
>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com>...
Did Noah have to? He didn't mention lots of creatures.
So what? Where did they all take a dump?
As for diversity, I ignore research.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Tell a lie soon.
Pastor Dave
On Sun, 9 May 2004 18:17:35 +0000 (UTC),
>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>> >
>> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> >> fact and faith of evolution....
>> >
>> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>> >like religion".
>>
>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>
>I assume you mean like gorillas or chimps giving birth to homo
>sapiens. No, but if you ever see such a thing happen, make note of
>it. Since evolution predicts that such an event cannot happen, seeing
>it happen would falsify evolution.
You are building a good case and Gould
would applaud your scenario.
>> Is there even one
>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>> Yet it is fact, right?
>
>IIRC, there is not (yet) a definitive lineage of the hominid family
>tree (others correct me if I'm behind). However, there is ample
>evidence (fossil and DNA) to treat our own evolution as a fact. To
>learn more about it see the "Hominid Species FAQ" at:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.htm
Oh, good examples. You know, like aferensis, which is
hotly disputed and not held by a few creationists to be an ancestor
of man anymore. That's just one example of the
outdated falsehoods we creationists continue to
spread as truth. But hey, we'll try anything.
<chuckle>
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Where did they dinosaurs take a dump?
Matt Silberstein
I am sorry you don't understand either what I wrote nor what you,
yourself, claim.
Robin Levett
>
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:20:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D.
> Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>
>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>>
>>Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the term.
>
> Yes, they are and calling them apes, does not make
> them apes. Evolutionists call them apes, because they know
> man came from apes. That all this Bible garbage
> consists of.
>
>
>
<snippage>
Will the arsehole that's doing this please desist?
1 It is dishonest to represent your posts as coming from Pastor Dave;
2 You add nothing to the debate except an opportunity for PD to claim
forgery;
3 Copying the message reference from PD's headers is guaranteed to screw up
someone's newsreader's threading
4 I suspect you are forging the "Approved" header - since the NNTP posting
host is not shown as "darwin" but "pcp01995982pcs.pimaco01.az.comcast.net".
Pastor Dave is enough of an idiot without putting words into his mouth.
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:20:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>
>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>>
>>Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the
>>term.
>
> No, they are not and calling them apes, does not make them apes.
> Evolutionists call them apes, because they believe man came from apes.
> That all this garbage consists of.
Are humans mammals?
What does that mean?
>>> Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils,
>>> from this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>
>>How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
>
> You ask this, to try to avoid admitting that you don't have the proof,
> yet claim it's reality.
No, I'm not talking about evidence _for_ common descent. I'm merely
pointing out that your anti-CD argument is seriously flawed.
>>Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
>
> We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a medical fact that
> humans come from humans. We can watch it happen. We are discussing
> humans from apes. Show me that and then you can talk.
Do you only believe things you can watch happen?
>>>Yet it is a fact, right?
>>
>>If evidence means anything, yes.
>
> You just admitted that you don't have the evidence
No, I didn't.
> and now you wish to claim that it is because of evidence that you
> believe. Interesting.
Nice attempt at sping control.
Well, actually it was a really crummy attempt.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> >It's infered from the *evidence*, of the fossils that *have been* found.
> >It's also infered from morphology, DNA, biogeographical distribution, and
> >temporal distribution of species. Multiple, independent lines of
evidence
> >that are consistantly, realistically, and objectively explained by the
ToE.
> >Only someone who is ignorant of the difficulties in fossilization think
that
> >there is a continious gradual sucession of fossils. Only someone who
seeks
> >to bolster their denial of the facts that do exist, expect there *should*
be
> >a continious fossil record.
>
> There isn't one single clear and gradual progression of
> fossils, from ape to man, nor has this supposed "common
> ancestor" ever been found.
Dave, humans are apes, why should there be a progression of apes to apes?
> The fact is, you have a few
> fossils,
Thousands, actually, which make up hundreds of individuals.
> already believe in evolution and then claim
> they are evidence of what you believe.
They are evidence, whether or not you "believe in" them or not.
> It never occurs
> to you that apes just might be apes and that's all.
And humans are apes.
> You blame your problems on the "difficulty of
> fossilization".
It's a fact that not every individual of every species leaves a fossil.
> What you're really saying, is that you
> don't have the necessary fossils to prove what you
> believe, but still filter every fossil through what you
> believe, as if it had already been proved.
There's enough to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have an
unreasonable doubt, that's not our problem.
>
> And btw, there is no such thing as DNA evidence of
> evolution. Similarities denote a common designer.
Again, the evidence exists, even if you attempt to dismiss it. If you claim
a common designer, you must explain why that designer used sub-optimal
designs that any competent engineer would laugh at.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:20:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D.
> Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>
> >On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
> >
> >> Have you seen apes turning into men?
> >
> >Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the term.
>
> No, they are not and calling them apes, does not make
> them apes. Evolutionists call them apes, because they
> believe man came from apes. That all this garbage
> consists of.
Can you explain what anatomical, genetic, behavioral, or molecular evidence
that would support your claim that humans are not apes? Humans are
classified as apes because they have all the necessary features of the
scientific definition of apes.
>
>
> >> Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils,
from
> >> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> >
> >How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
>
> You ask this, to try to avoid admitting that you don't
> have the proof, yet claim it's reality.
No, it's pointing out that your request is unreasonable.
>
>
> >Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
>
> We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a
> medical fact that humans come from humans.
It's also a medical fact that humans are apes.
> We can
> watch it happen. We are discussing humans from apes.
> Show me that and then you can talk.
Again, humans are apes, so we do see it happening. We also have the
genetic, anatomical, behavioral, and molecular evidence that directly
reveals the relationship betwen modern humans and other apes. That's not
even mentioning the fossil evidence, which would be sufficient in itself.
We can show you the evidence, but all you will do is deny it.
>
>
> >>Yet it is a fact, right?
> >
> >If evidence means anything, yes.
>
> You just admitted that you don't have the evidence and
> now you wish to claim that it is because of evidence
> that you believe. Interesting.
Dave, he never "admitted" that he didn't have evidence. You simply denied
the evidence exists. Evolution is a fact, and we know that because of the
evidence. That you refuse to see the evidence does not mean it doesn't
exist.
DJT
Mikey Brass
Australopiths, anatomical evidence, DNA evidence, etc, etc, etc.
> nor has this supposed "common
> ancestor" ever been found.
Actually palaeoanthropology is right now at the timeframe in which it is
to be expected - Ardipthecus, Salanthropus...
> The fact is, you have a few fossils,
Actually thousands of hominin fossils.
> already believe in evolution
Accept evolution and repeatedly test it using the molecular and
anatomical evidence unearthed.
> It never occurs to you that apes just might be apes and that's all.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. And it never occurs to you that
life forms changes over time.
> And btw, there is no such thing as DNA evidence of
> evolution.
Actually there is. The genetic structures determine it, and the
differences which do exist are do to mutations. Funnily enough, that's
exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.
> Similarities denote a common designer.
A lovely common designer who selectively OMITS a vitamin C gene in all
primates.
--
===========
Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology student
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records
explored"
- "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would
it?"
(Albert Einstein)
.
Jari Anttila
<snip>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism.html
> > Evolutionism:
> > sometimes called Total Evolutionism or transformism;
> > belief in [agnostic or atheistic] Evolution;
> > Evolutionism generally teaches that the creatures of today
> > gradually developed into existence through billions of years of
> > [natural processes], and that all present life has descended
> > from one (or a few) original forms(s).
> -----------------------------------------------------------
Interesting.
So the billions of years are an essential part of this
so-called evolutionism. Therefore any science that has some
results showing the universe and Earth have an age of billions of
years belongs to this "evolutionism".
Geology, plate tectonics, astronomy, Big Bang -cosmology...
BTW, the (now obsolete) Steady State -cosmology was even more
evolutionistic, because according to it the universe had an
infinite age.
The only reason to reject the old age is biblical literalism.
Likewise, the only reason to reject natural processes in origins
context is a religious demand for a supernatural origin (the present
universe seems to work naturally), so evolutionism by this definition
is anything naturalistic that contradicts the biblical timescale and
supernaturalism.
>
> The study of evolution is science.
> There is nothing evil in the belief in
> Evolutionism, but it is philosophy not science.
How about this:
The study of gravity is science.
There is nothing evil in the belief in
gravitationism (which generally teaches that all masses
in the universe are mainly controlled by gravity [a natural force,
therefore gravitationism is agnostic and atheist]),
but it is philosophy not science.
?
<snip>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins)
> > The word evolutionism was not made up by creationists. It applied to the
> > views of (mosty Lamarckian progressivist) thinkers at the turn of the
> > 20thC. People like Bergson, who was about as far from a Darwinian view
> > as one could get and still be classed as an evolutionary thinker.
>
> Thanks for the honesty as to who coined the word.
But not its meaning.
> Hopefully at
> some point you will begin to recognize the difference between
> "faith in evolution" and what has been proven true.
>
It's the "faith vs. proven" -dichotomy again, which would render
every empirical science to faith only, because all they have is
evidence,
and that does not count.
Jari
Dana Tweedy
snip
> >>
> >> Have you seen apes turning into men?
> >
> >We are apes, and the fossil record demonstrates the evolution of our
> >ancestors over millions of years.
>
> That was a "NO", folks.
Actually, Dave, that's a yes. We have seen humans relationship to other
apes, and we have the fossil evidence that shows the sequence of evolution.
Your denial of the evidence means only that you are in denial.
>
>
> >> Is there even one
> >> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> >> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> >> Yet it is fact, right?
> >
> >You've been shown this several times.
>
> No, no such thing has been shown to me and we both know
> that.
Dave, we both know that you have been presented with the evidence of
evolution many times. You deny what is shown to you, but that does not mean
it does not exist.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> >> Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
> >> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> >> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> >
> >Yes there is. Try reading some science books, rather than Chick tracts.
>
> It does not exist.
Denial does not mean it doesn't exist, Dave.
> Only ignorant fools, or bald faced
> liars claim that.
You are right, only fools and liars deny the evidence. Which do you claim
to be?
> If you think it does, then provide
> it for us.
Sure thing. See:
http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/museum/hominid/Sect1/guid01.3.html#TXT
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/
>
>
> >> Yet it is fact, right?
> >
> >A. Humans ARE apes.
>
> Why, because you call them apes?
Because they are anatomcially, genetically, behaviorily, and molecularly
apes.
>
> >B. There is a reasonably clear progression from Australopithicus to Homo
> >Sapiens.
>
> No, there isn't.
Ah, the sweet sound of denial. Close your eyes tighter, Dave, hum louder,
reality might be sinking in.
>
>
> >C. There is an immense amount of fossil evidence for evolution of other
> >species, showing, in some instances, very "clear and gradual progression
of
> >fossils". Why are you fixated on the Homo line? Do you not understand how
> >evolution works?
>
> There is absolutely zero evidence for this claim.
So, why are museums full of that "zero evidence"?
>
>
> >D. Evolution of species has been directly directly observed, in
laboratories
> >and in nature. Are you claiming there is some mystical barrier that
prevents
> >repeated speciation events from resulting in new Families, etc. ?
> >Klaus
>
> You are a liar. Microevolution is the ONLY thing that
> has been observed.
Such sweet Christian charity, Dave. I can see you are truly a man of peace
and understanding.
Macroevolution has been observed, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/macroevd.htm
http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution5.html
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"Matt Silberstein" <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:cvat90hejktqkmfpf...@4ax.com...
Well, Matt, I guess you are another person besides me that "Pastor Dave" is
terrified of.
DJT
Boikat
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 13:57:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
> >> >news:39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> >> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
> >> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> >> >> fact and faith of evolution....
> >> >
> >> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their
lack
> >of
> >> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic
that
> >you
> >> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak
attempts
> >to
> >> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief
> >system,
> >> >like religion".
> >>
> >> Have you seen apes turning into men?
> >
of
> >"fact, faith, and lack of objectivity", asinine expectations.
> >
> >> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> >> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> >> Yet it is fact, right?
> >
> >It's also infered from morphology, DNA, biogeographical distribution, and
> >temporal distribution of species. Multiple, independent lines of
evidence
> >that are consistantly, realistically, and objectively explained by the
ToE.
> >Only someone who is ignorant of the difficulties in fossilization think
that
> >there is a continious gradual sucession of fossils. Only someone who
seeks
> >to bolster their denial of the facts that do exist, expect there *should*
be
> >a continious fossil record.
>
> There isn't one single clear and gradual progression of
> ancestor" ever been found...
There doesn't need to be. The fossils that *have been found* are
sufficient, along with DNA, morphology and temporal distribution. Get over
it.
<snip ignorant prattle>
Boikat
AC
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:20:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D.
> Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>
>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>
> No, they are not and calling them apes, does not make
> them apes. Evolutionists call them apes, because they
> believe man came from apes. That all this garbage
> consists of.
What an incredible argument. "Humans aren't apes because they're not".
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 15:11:37 +0000 (UTC), AC
><mightym...@hotmail.com> posted thusly:
>
>>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>>><boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>>>>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>>>>> fact and faith of evolution....
>>>>
>>>>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>>>>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>>>>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>>>>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>>>>like religion".
>>>
>>
>>ancestors over millions of years.
>
> That was a "NO", folks.
That was yes. I'm sorry you are illiterate.
>
>
>>> Is there even one
>>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>> Yet it is fact, right?
>>
>>You've been shown this several times.
>
> No, no such thing has been shown to me and we both know
> that.
Yawn.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 21:12:29 +0000 (UTC),
> gal...@hotmail.com (Dave) posted thusly:
>
>>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>> Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
>>> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>>> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>> Yet it is fact, right?
>>>
>>
>>The scary thing is this; why are there fossils at all? And good grief
>>why are there so many fossils? That vast number of different dinosaurs
>>in a mere 6000 years? Yet Noah never even mentioned them.
>
> Did Noah have to? He didn't mention lots of creatures.
> So what?
There was no global flood.
>
> As for diversity, you ignore research.
You wouldn't know research if it came up and kicked you in the ass.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Pastor Dave
On 08 May 2004 Sat, 08 May 2004 15:37:43 GMT, IKnowHimDoYou
<IKno...@leavingsoon.com>, posted thusly:
> In article <BhXmc.32805$6L3.3931@fed1read05>, "Icono"
> <icon...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> "Don Kresch" <ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
>> news:9al790169lcfdgu9g...@4ax.com...
>> > In alt.atheism on Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:19:04 -0700, "Icono"
>> > <icon...@home.com> let us all know that:
>> > >
>> > >"Risto Karttunen" <ti...@iobox.fi> wrote in message
>> > >news:409ad3b8...@news-server.welho.com...
>> > >> "Icono" wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >ANY comment about God is an admission that such an entity
>> > >> >exists.
>> > >> >
>> > >> Of course not. See, for example,
>> > >>
>> > >> http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/ap/quine-00.htm
>> > >>
>> > >> Along those lines, if we say that "it is false that there is
>> > >> something that is God", do you really take that comment as an
>> > >> admission that such an entity exists?
>> > >
>> > >No. It is a statement.
>> > >My comments are about those who argue about the attributes of
>> > >something
>> they
>> > >claim does not exist.
>> >
>> > Because you're a cowardly troll.
>> >
>> >
>> > Don
>>
>> O.K. so I'm above your little pointed head.
>>
>> Bye Bye
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Don only has a very limited vocabulary. He likes to call everyone
> names. It makes him feel good methinks. He runs out of substance in
> about one sentence.
>
Sounds like me .
--
ą Pastor Dave ą
Chris Nedin
>
> > "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
> > and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
> > being a science founded on an unproved theory.
> > Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
> > theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
> > belief in special creation. Both are concepts
> > which believers know to be true, but neither,
> > up to the present, has been capable of proof.
> > - L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
> > the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
> > of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
> > the Preservation of Favored Races in the
> > Struggle for Life
>
> I seen this quote before. And to my surprise it does not
> appear to be in the QMP. (I did see another quote
> from another person's into to yet another edition of
> _Origin_.) This edition does not appear to be
> in a library local to me. But it has to be local
> to someone in the newsgroup. Anyone within easy
> access to a large metropolitan library or a
> university library is encouraged to see if they have
> this one.
>
> I see that catshark asked on March 5 but it does
> not seem to have gone anywhere possibly because
> it was large thread. Various evolution
> deniers have used it here: Pastor Dave, Skywise, Ed
> Conrad, etc.
"On the way, stopping over in England, I spoke to an elderly zoologist, L.
Harrison Matthews, who wrote the introduction to Darwin's _Origin_ in the
Everyman edition. In phrases which have been seized on by Creationists,
Matthews argues that belief in Darwinism is like a religious comitment.
This was going to be used by the State of Arkansas who would argue that
belief in Creation-science is logically identical to belief in evolution.
Hence, since one can teach the latter, one should be allowed to teach the
former. (A more rigorous conclusion would be that since both are religion,
neither should be taught. But no matter.)
Would Matthews recant? He was happy to do so, and wrote me a strong letter
about the misuse that he felt Creationists had made of his introduction.
Reading between the lines, I got the strong impression that what motivated
Matthews in his introduction was not the logic of evolutionary theory at all.
He wanted to poke the late Sir Gavin de Beer in the eye. De Beer was a
fanatical Darwinian, and Matthews was dressing him down for the undue strength
of his feelings!" (Ruse 1984, p. 323)
Chris
Ruse, M. (1984) A philosophers day in court. In: Science and Creationism, A.
Montague (ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
cne...@yahoo.com
---------------------------------
| "How can Nedin be trusted" |
| C Wieland Director, |
| Creation Research Foundation, |
| Queensland Australia |
---------------------------------
Matt Davis
>
> "Klaus Hellnick" <khellni...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Masnc.72246$NR5....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>>
>> "Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> > <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> > >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> > >> fact and faith of evolution....
>> > >
>> > >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their
> lack
>> of
>> > >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic
> that
>> you
>> > >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts
>> to
>> > >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief
>> system,
>> > >like religion".
>> >
>> > Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one
>> > single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> > this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>
>> Yes there is. Try reading some science books, rather than Chick tracts.
>>
>> > Yet it is fact, right?
>>
>> A. Humans ARE apes.
>
> Back to Darwin, no? I think any 6-year old would say that they are not.
Are humans mammals?
>> B. There is a reasonably clear progression from Australopithicus to Homo
>> Sapiens.
>
> It does not mean they ARE progressions.......
But you have to explain why each part of the progression only exists
during a particular time. Where were the humans before there were humans?
Unfortunately, my eyes now glaze over when I read the word "assume" in one
of your posts.
<snip>
Matt Davis
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 18:17:35 +0000 (UTC),
> papa_...@hotmail.com (VoiceOfReason) posted thusly:
>
>>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com>...
>>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>>> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>>> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>>> >> fact and faith of evolution....
>>> >
>>> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
>>> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
>>> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
>>> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
>>> >like religion".
>>>
>>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>>
>>I assume you mean like gorillas or chimps giving birth to homo
>>sapiens. No, but if you ever see such a thing happen, make note of
>>it. Since evolution predicts that such an event cannot happen, seeing
>>it happen would falsify evolution.
>
> You are building a straw man. But then again, Gould
> would applaud your scenario.
Does anybody else see something wrong with the way that second sentence
resonates after reading the first one?
<snip>
VoiceOfReason
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 15:37:54 +0000 (UTC), Matt
> Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> posted
> thusly:
>
> >In alt.talk.creationism I read this message from Pastor Dave
> ><nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com>:
> >
> >><boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
> >>>> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> >>>> fact and faith of evolution....
> >>>
> >>>By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
> >>>objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
> >>>just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
> >>>cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
> >>>like religion".
> >>
> >>single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> >>this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> >
> >clear and gradual progression of observations of the Moon going
> >in that orbit? No, there isn't. Yet it is a fact, right?
> >
> >Have you seen a baby grow up to an Adult? Is there even one
> >single clear and gradual set of pictures of that baby growing up?
> >No, there isn't. Yet it is a fact, right?
> >
> >It his desperation to attack the science of evolutionary biology,
> >in his despair because of his lack of any useful argument, PD
> >takes refuge in epistemological nihilism. He attacks the whole
> >notion of knowledge itself. How can PD know that the Bible in his
> >hand is the Bible is the Bible it was yesterday, he does not have
> >the photographs.
>
> You sir, are an idiot and have proved yourself to be
> one. I will not discuss this issue with you any
> further.
I'm starting to get the impression that "Pastor Dave" is RR's sock puppet.
VoiceOfReason
> >> On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> >> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
> >> >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
> >> >> fact and faith of evolution....
> >> >
> >> >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their lack of
> >> >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic that you
> >> >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts to
> >> >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief system,
> >> >like religion".
> >>
> >> Have you seen apes turning into men?
> >
> >sapiens. No, but if you ever see such a thing happen, make note of
> >it. Since evolution predicts that such an event cannot happen, seeing
> >it happen would falsify evolution.
>
> You are building a straw man. But then again, Gould
> would applaud your scenario.
You need to look up the definition of straw man. That you don't
understand it is obvious.
> >> Is there even one
> >> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> >> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> >> Yet it is fact, right?
> >
> >IIRC, there is not (yet) a definitive lineage of the hominid family
> >tree (others correct me if I'm behind). However, there is ample
> >evidence (fossil and DNA) to treat our own evolution as a fact. To
> >learn more about it see the "Hominid Species FAQ" at:
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.htm
>
> Oh, good examples. You know, like aferensis, which is
> hotly disputed and not held by most to be an ancestor
> of man anymore. That's just one example of the
> outdated falsehoods you evolutionists continue to
> spread as truth. But hey, we're all ears about
> Haeckel's drawings. <chuckle>
If you choose to ignore evidence by covering your eyes and ears,
there's little anyone can do you help you.
>
> www.drdino.com
Ah yes, Hovind the con artist. This proves this poster is either RR,
or someone equally as gullible.
VoiceOfReason
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 21:12:29 +0000 (UTC),
>
> >Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
> >> this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
> >> Yet it is fact, right?
> >>
> >
> >why are there so many fossils? That vast number of different dinosaurs
> >in a mere 6000 years? Yet Noah never even mentioned them.
>
> Did Noah have to? He didn't mention lots of creatures.
> So what?
Noah wasn't the only person around at the time. But if there had been
an animal 20 feet tall with 6 inch teeth that could eat a human in one
bite, I think someone might have mentioned it in passing.
> As for diversity, you ignore research.
Spoken like a true hypocrite.
catshark
wrote:
That's helpful in giving a better cite, but Ruse didn't give the text of
the letter or much context from the original quote. I did a quick, partial
search at the McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project
<http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/index.htm>
and didn't find anything more there (Matthews was barely mentioned in
either Ruse's or Gould's depositions). I'll look around some more. If
nothing else, I'll try asking in the next round of the QMP.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Daniel Harper
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:20:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>
>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>>
>>Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the term.
>
> No, they are not and calling them apes, does not make them apes.
> Evolutionists call them apes, because they believe man came from apes.
> That all this garbage consists of.
>
Oh, look, Pastor Dave's back. And I'll bet he still doesn't want to tell
me what evidence convinces him that the War of 1812 happened....
>
>>> Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils,
>>> from this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>
>>How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
>
> You ask this, to try to avoid admitting that you don't have the proof, yet
> claim it's reality.
>
There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only evidence. A
whole lot of it is collected here:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/index.html>
(I've given you this link a whole lot of times. Are you planning on
reading it anytime soon?)
>
>>Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
>
> We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a medical fact that
> humans come from humans. We can watch it happen. We are discussing
> humans from apes. Show me that and then you can talk.
>
>
Humans don't always come from humans. I, personally, was hatched from an
egg. Admittedly, I don't have any direct observational evidence of this,
but then again, I'll bet you don't have any direct observational evidence
that you were born of a human being, either. Sure, you have photos and
eyewitness testimony, but how do you know the photos weren't faked and the
witnesses aren't lying?
Once you are convinced that you came from an egg just like me, you can
join my new religious movement, the New Covenant of Yolkism. The Great
Sparrow will once again come for us one day and feed the True Believers
from Her giant beak. It'll be wormy manna from heaven for all, and though
the taste will likely not be all that good, it'll be all we can live on
after the Tree of Life is shaken and all organisms on the planet are
destroyed by the Great Sparrow.
Don't believe me? Why not?
>>>Yet it is a fact, right?
>>
>>If evidence means anything, yes.
>
> You just admitted that you don't have the evidence and now you wish to
> claim that it is because of evidence that you believe. Interesting.
The standard of proof you demand is totally absurd. Any claim that you
might make could be denied by demanding an appropriate level of
evidenciary support; evolution has been shown to be true by accomodating
all evidence that has so far been gathered (millions of pieces), that's
all.
--
In the Beginning, was the Command Line...
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
Mark VandeWettering
>
> "Klaus Hellnick" <khellni...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Masnc.72246$NR5....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>>
>> news:39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:20:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> > <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"jrh" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:Eennc.127964$Qy.39159@fed1read04...
>> > >> By refusing to acknowledge the difference between the
>> > >> fact and faith of evolution....
>> > >
>> > >By not understanding the difference between fact, faith, and their
> lack
>> of
>> > >objectivity, creationists frequently make the same mistake in logic
> that
>> you
>> > >just made. Throw in a dose of equivocation, and you have weak attempts
>> to
>> > >cast accepting evolution (based on evidence) as "just another belief
>> system,
>> > >like religion".
>> >
>> > single, clear and gradual progression of fossils, from
>> > this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Back to Darwin, no? I think any 6-year old would say that they are not.
Are six year olds the authorities that creationists ask to resolve
questions of biology? That _would_ explain a great deal...
>> B. There is a reasonably clear progression from Australopithicus to Homo
>> Sapiens.
>
> It does not mean they ARE progressions.......
*blink blink* Uh, so a clear progression does not mean there is a
progression? What curious logic you employ...
>> C. There is an immense amount of fossil evidence for evolution of other
>> species, showing, in some instances, very "clear and gradual progression
> of
>> fossils". Why are you fixated on the Homo line? Do you not understand how
>> evolution works?
>
> I think we do, however it's the I have to assume part that we do not like
> very much.
Nobody said you had to assume anything.
>> D. Evolution of species has been directly directly observed, in
> laboratories
>> and in nature. Are you claiming there is some mystical barrier that
> prevents
>> repeated speciation events from resulting in new Families, etc. ?
>
> You don't have to go into some laboratory for that, it suffice to take some
> dogs and play around with them. Still dogs though....
In exact agreement with evolutionary theory...
Mark
>
>> Klaus
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
>> >
>> > "As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
>> > to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
>> > thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
>> > before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
>> >
>> > "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
>> > and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
>> > being a science founded on an unproved theory.
>> > Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
>> > theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
>> > belief in special creation. Both are concepts
>> > which believers know to be true, but neither,
>> > up to the present, has been capable of proof.
>> > - L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
>> > the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
>> > of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
>> > the Preservation of Favored Races in the
>> > Struggle for Life
>> >
>> >
>> >
jrh
Pastor Dave,
About the only thing clear in this "debate" is that evolutionists
want to confuse biological evolution with evolutionism. It appears
this effort has been so successfull their minds no longer perceive
any difference between their belief system (frame of reference),
and the information they use it to clasify.
It is a sad day if those who post here are a cross section
of the scientific community. The majority of posts are just
lame attempts to divert from or obscure issues.
There is reason to object to the definition at
http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism.html
Perhaps these two definitions would be better.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionism:
Belief that an undirrected biological process
caused life in all of it's forms.
Total Evolutionism:
Belief that an undirrected process
caused life in all of it's forms.
> Evolutionism generally teaches that the creatures of today
> gradually developed into existence through billions of years of
> natural processes, and that all present life has descended
> from one (or a few) original forms(s).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Creationism:
Belief that a dirrected process
caused life in all of it's forms.
-----------------------------------------------------------
definition for
YE Creationism?
No off topic responses Please!
jrh
Thore Schmechtig
> prevented from seeing evidence that contradicts
> their preconceived ideas.
Evidence such as...?
(Awaiting Hovind babble or other AHLs...)
--
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST
(found on www.evilbible.com)
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of
gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms, but you
have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have
no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated
Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little
loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth
(4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting
in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet
with the exception of those who share your beliefs --
though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and
physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot
rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and
agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Pastor Dave
Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>On Sun, 09 May 2004 21:11:27 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:20:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>>>
>>>Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the
>>>term.
>>
>> No, they are not and calling them apes, does not make them apes.
>> Evolutionists call them apes, because they believe man came from apes.
>> That all this garbage consists of.
>
>Are humans mammals?
Humans are humans. Classifying them as animals, does
not make them animals. You parade these words as if
they prove something. Tell me, who named man a primate
and a mammal? Wasn't that the same men who believe
that man came from ape? Tell me, how does that prove
anything?
>>>Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
>>
>> We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a medical fact that
>> humans come from humans. We can watch it happen. We are discussing
>> humans from apes. Show me that and then you can talk.
>
>Do you only believe things you can watch happen?
Okay, then you believe that gravity is really little
pink fairies pulling on things. After all, just
because you can't see them, doesn't mean they aren't
there.
You are a hypocrite. You'll argue that you want to see
God, yet make the above statement.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Read an amazing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
Pastor Dave
<boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>> There isn't one single clear and gradual progression of
>> fossils, from ape to man, nor has this supposed "common
>> ancestor" ever been found...
>
>
>There doesn't need to be.
At least you admit it doesn't exist.
>The fossils that *have been found* are
>sufficient, along with DNA, morphology and temporal distribution.
Sufficient to show that apes and man exist, not that
one came from the other.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video
Pastor Dave
jaria...@hotmail.com (Jari Anttila) posted thusly:
>n...@spam.com (jrh) wrote in message news:<1ennc.127952$Qy.82748@fed1read04>...
>
><snip>
>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism.html
>> > Evolutionism:
>> > sometimes called Total Evolutionism or transformism;
>> > belief in [agnostic or atheistic] Evolution;
>> > Evolutionism generally teaches that the creatures of today
>> > gradually developed into existence through billions of years of
>> > [natural processes], and that all present life has descended
>> > from one (or a few) original forms(s).
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>Interesting.
>
>So the billions of years are an essential part of this
>so-called evolutionism. Therefore any science that has some
>results showing the universe and Earth have an age of billions of
>years belongs to this "evolutionism".
>
>Geology,
Nothing in geology proves that the Earth is billions of
years old.
>plate tectonics,
Happens slowly in most cases, NOW. That doesn't mean
that there was never a cataclysmic event that changed
the geography of the world.
>astronomy,
Astronomy doesn't prove billions of years.
>Big Bang -cosmology...
Which ignores certain facts.
>BTW, the (now obsolete) Steady State -cosmology was even more
>evolutionistic, because according to it the universe had an
>infinite age.
And yet, many evolutionists claimed it was truth.
Imagine that. But hey, we shouldn't doubt you NOW,
right?
>The only reason to reject the old age is biblical literalism.
Or that it lacks any proof.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Read an amazing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Pastor Dave
<mi...@bed.uk.clara.net> posted thusly:
>> There isn't one single clear and gradual progression of
>> fossils, from ape to man,
>
>Australopiths, anatomical evidence, DNA evidence, etc, etc, etc.
Sorry, you failed again to provide proof.
>> nor has this supposed "common
>> ancestor" ever been found.
>
>Actually palaeoanthropology is right now at the timeframe in which it is
>to be expected - Ardipthecus, Salanthropus...
Actually, you don't have the common ancestor.
>> The fact is, you have a few fossils,
>
>Actually thousands of hominin fossils.
You people keep claiming that you can't find that many,
because of this or that. The fact is, the amount of
fossil evidence that supposedly shows ape to man, would
fit in a coffin or two.
>> already believe in evolution
>
>Accept evolution and repeatedly test it using the molecular and
>anatomical evidence unearthed.
You have no such evidence.
>> It never occurs to you that apes just might be apes and that's all.
>
>Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. And it never occurs to you that
>life forms changes over time.
Not into other life forms, no.
>> And btw, there is no such thing as DNA evidence of
>> evolution.
>
>Actually there is. The genetic structures determine it, and the
>differences which do exist are do to mutations. Funnily enough, that's
>exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.
Prove that it happened. Show me mutations taking one
kind into another. You have ZERO evidence of that.
>> Similarities denote a common designer.
>
>A lovely common designer who selectively OMITS a vitamin C gene in all
>primates.
Commonalities equal common design. God didn't create
the problems. When He was done, everything was "good".
Man hosed things up.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video
Pastor Dave
<mightym...@hotmail.com> posted thusly:
>On Sun, 9 May 2004 21:11:27 +0000 (UTC),
Even better is the argument that humans are apes
because we call them apes.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Read an amazing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Pastor Dave
Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> posted thusly:
>On Sun, 09 May 2004 21:11:27 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:20:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>>>
>>>Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the term.
>>
>> No, they are not and calling them apes, does not make them apes.
>> Evolutionists call them apes, because they believe man came from apes.
>> That all this garbage consists of.
>>
>
>Oh, look, Pastor Dave's back. And I'll bet he still doesn't want to tell
>me what evidence convinces him that the War of 1812 happened....
>
>>
>>>> Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils,
>>>> from this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>>
>>>How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
>>
>> You ask this, to try to avoid admitting that you don't have the proof, yet
>> claim it's reality.
>>
>
>There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only evidence. A
>whole lot of it is collected here:
>
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/index.html>
>
>(I've given you this link a whole lot of times. Are you planning on
>reading it anytime soon?)
Nothing there proved a thing about macroevolution, yet
you keep pasting it in, as if it did.
>> We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a medical fact that
>> humans come from humans. We can watch it happen. We are discussing
>> humans from apes. Show me that and then you can talk.
>>
>>
>
>Humans don't always come from humans. I, personally, was hatched from an
>egg.
This, I am inclined to believe.
Pastor Dave
(jrh) posted thusly:
><clip all>
>Pastor Dave,
>
>About the only thing clear in this "debate" is that evolutionists
>want to confuse biological evolution with evolutionism. It appears
>this effort has been so successfull their minds no longer perceive
>any difference between their belief system (frame of reference),
>and the information they use it to clasify.
>
>It is a sad day if those who post here are a cross section
>of the scientific community. The majority of posts are just
>lame attempts to divert from or obscure issues.
Agreed.
Pastor Dave
papa_...@hotmail.com (VoiceOfReason) posted thusly:
Yup, yer right. And you can find it in the Bible.
R Brown
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 22:47:12 +0000 (UTC),
> jaria...@hotmail.com (Jari Anttila) posted thusly:
>
> >n...@spam.com (jrh) wrote in message
news:<1ennc.127952$Qy.82748@fed1read04>...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >> http://www.creationists.org/evolutionism.html
> >> > Evolutionism:
> >> > sometimes called Total Evolutionism or transformism;
> >> > belief in [agnostic or atheistic] Evolution;
> >> > Evolutionism generally teaches that the creatures of today
> >> > gradually developed into existence through billions of years of
> >> > [natural processes], and that all present life has descended
> >> > from one (or a few) original forms(s).
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Interesting.
> >
> >So the billions of years are an essential part of this
> >so-called evolutionism. Therefore any science that has some
> >results showing the universe and Earth have an age of billions of
> >years belongs to this "evolutionism".
> >
> >Geology,
>
> Nothing in geology proves that the Earth is billions of
> years old.
>
know this but twist it because the best explanation consistant with the
evidence happens to cause you religious discomfort. The best explanation,
based upon the geological evidence, is that the earth is approximately 4.5
billion years old.
>
> >plate tectonics,
>
> Happens slowly in most cases, NOW. That doesn't mean
> that there was never a cataclysmic event that changed
> the geography of the world.
>
uniform.
>
> >astronomy,
>
> Astronomy doesn't prove billions of years.
>
for the evidence provided by astronomy.
>
> >Big Bang -cosmology...
>
> Which ignores certain facts.
>
>
> >BTW, the (now obsolete) Steady State -cosmology was even more
> >evolutionistic, because according to it the universe had an
> >infinite age.
>
> And yet, many evolutionists claimed it was truth.
> Imagine that. But hey, we shouldn't doubt you NOW,
> right?
>
hallmark of science. Religious explanations cannot change or else you'll
have a new religion on your hands. Would you care to change your religious
point of view now?
>
> >The only reason to reject the old age is biblical literalism.
>
> Or that it lacks any proof.
>
won't accept a scientific explanation for that evidence: you'll only accept
a religious one. A very specific one.
Let's be clear (and honest) here.
>
> ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
>
Steve Schaffner
Have you tried asking Ruse?
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Steven J.
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 22:34:28 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D.
> Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>
>
> >Are humans mammals?
>
> Humans are humans. Classifying them as animals, does
> not make them animals. You parade these words as if
> they prove something. Tell me, who named man a primate
> and a mammal? Wasn't that the same men who believe
> that man came from ape? Tell me, how does that prove
> anything?
>
taxonomist often cited by creationists as a creationist founder of modern
science, who declared that humans were primates and mammals. He also
declared that the species that existed on the Earth now were the same
species originally created (although he modified this view for a few
domestic plants), so his motives seem hardly to have been to bolster
evolutionary views that didn't exist at the time.
But as for Bryant's question: do you agree that, e.g. cats, cows, dolphins,
bats, etc. are mammals? What makes them all mammals -- why does it make
sense to put them all in that class? Is there any defining trait of mammals
that humans don't have? Is there any trait humans have that excludes them
from the Mammalia? A similar question can be raised for primates -- we have
the large brains, forward-facing eyes, thumbs, and a host of other features
that characterize primates and distinguish them from other animals.
As for "proving something," that humans are primates and mammals at least
raises an interesting question. Living things fall into a hierarchy of
groups united by many shared traits, nested within larger groups united by a
smaller number of shared traits. In general, human-engineered artifacts
(things known to be specially created) don't do this; a design can borrow
traits from many different groups, so that it doesn't fit cleanly into any
of them. One can imagine animals (from the centaurs of mythology to birds
with mammary glands) that don't fit into the nested hierarchy -- but one
can't actually find them. Why should life fall into a pattern suggestive of
common descent rather than common design?
>
> >>>Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
> >>
> >> We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a medical fact that
> >> humans come from humans. We can watch it happen. We are discussing
> >> humans from apes. Show me that and then you can talk.
> >
> >Do you only believe things you can watch happen?
>
> Okay, then you believe that gravity is really little
> pink fairies pulling on things. After all, just
> because you can't see them, doesn't mean they aren't
> there.
>
Show me the testable predictions of little pink gravity fairies. Gravity is
believed in, not because it is seen directly, but because it provides a
single explanation for why apples fall and the moon orbits the Earth.
Likewise, atoms are believed in not because they are seen directly, but
because they explain various data obtained by experiments. Common descent
explains why life falls into a nested hierarchy, why humans share
pseudogenes with other primates (and why those pseudogenes are more similar
between humans and other apes than between apes and monkeys), why embryonic
baleen whales have teeth and hind limb buds, etc.
>
> You are a hypocrite. You'll argue that you want to see
> God, yet make the above statement.
>
That one can have good reason to accept the existence of something one
hasn't observed directly?
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
Pastor Dave
<rbr...@hotmail.com> posted thusly:
That is your opinion, not proof. If you're going to
claim it is truth, period and that's that, then be
prepared to prove your claim. You do not leave room
for doubt, so the "science isn't about proof" claim and
the "best explanation" claim is not an honest approach.
>> >plate tectonics,
>>
>> Happens slowly in most cases, NOW. That doesn't mean
>> that there was never a cataclysmic event that changed
>> the geography of the world.
>>
>Please provide the evidence that the rate of geological change is not
>uniform.
I don't have to prove a negative, nor did I make a
claim. I responded to a claim.You must prove that it
has always been the same.
>> >astronomy,
>>
>> Astronomy doesn't prove billions of years.
>>
>However, billions of years is the best scientific explanation that accounts
>for the evidence provided by astronomy.
That is your opinion.
>> >Big Bang -cosmology...
>>
>> Which ignores certain facts.
>>
>Which you can't or won't provide.....
Sure I can. Please explain evolution to the heavier
elements and how the nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8
(called the "helium mass 4 gap") were crossed. Don't
know what I'm talking about? That's no surprise. You
don't do any research, or you would not believe what
you do.
>> >BTW, the (now obsolete) Steady State -cosmology was even more
>> >evolutionistic, because according to it the universe had an
>> >infinite age.
>>
>> And yet, many evolutionists claimed it was truth.
>> Imagine that. But hey, we shouldn't doubt you NOW,
>> right?
>>
>The explanations of science necessarily change with new evidence. That is a
>hallmark of science. Religious explanations cannot change or else you'll
>have a new religion on your hands. Would you care to change your religious
>point of view now?
Really? They change? Tell me, on what date did
evolutionists change their beliefs and discard the man
from ape idea? And if evolutionists "change their
beliefs", then why do you insist that what you believe
now, is right?
You equate what you believe with science itself. If
that is true, then what you believe cannot change, or
science itself has changed.
>> >The only reason to reject the old age is biblical literalism.
>>
>> Or that it lacks any proof.
>>
>It certainly has no lack of evidence. By "proof" you simply mean that you
>won't accept a scientific explanation for that evidence: you'll only accept
>a religious one. A very specific one.
>Let's be clear (and honest) here.
Ignoring problems does not equal evidence, yet that is
what you are forced to do.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Exchange between Marge and Geoffrey the butler
on "Fresh Prince" (both African American):
Marge: My brother, you have been oppressed,
repressed and suppressed. Don't you know
you can be free?
Geoffrey: I have known freedom. I don't like
the health plan.
Pastor Dave
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> posted thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4tru90p2513rdvgip...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 22:34:28 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D.
>> Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>>
>-- [snip]
>>
>> >Are humans mammals?
>>
>> Humans are humans. Classifying them as animals, does
>> not make them animals. You parade these words as if
>> they prove something. Tell me, who named man a primate
>> and a mammal? Wasn't that the same men who believe
>> that man came from ape? Tell me, how does that prove
>> anything?
>>
>Actually, it was Karl von Linne (Carrolus Linnaeus), the 18th century
>taxonomist often cited by creationists as a creationist founder of modern
>science, who declared that humans were primates and mammals. He also
>declared that the species that existed on the Earth now were the same
>species originally created (although he modified this view for a few
>domestic plants), so his motives seem hardly to have been to bolster
>evolutionary views that didn't exist at the time.
That's quite interesting. I did not know that. It
seems that he was a believer in microevolution, as he
should have been, but denied macroevolution, which he
also should have done. It seems that he called man a
primate, because of similarities to apes. I agree that
there are similarities, but that doesn't necessarily
equate to proper classification.
>But as for Bryant's question: do you agree that, e.g. cats, cows, dolphins,
>bats, etc. are mammals? What makes them all mammals -- why does it make
>sense to put them all in that class? Is there any defining trait of mammals
>that humans don't have? Is there any trait humans have that excludes them
>from the Mammalia? A similar question can be raised for primates -- we have
>the large brains, forward-facing eyes, thumbs, and a host of other features
>that characterize primates and distinguish them from other animals.
You use these classifications to claim that man is an
animal. Let's be honest about this.
>> >>>Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
>> >>
>> >> We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a medical fact that
>> >> humans come from humans. We can watch it happen. We are discussing
>> >> humans from apes. Show me that and then you can talk.
>> >
>> >Do you only believe things you can watch happen?
>>
>> Okay, then you believe that gravity is really little
>> pink fairies pulling on things. After all, just
>> because you can't see them, doesn't mean they aren't
>> there.
>>
>Show me the testable predictions of little pink gravity fairies.
And what predictions prove that man came from apes?
>Gravity is
>believed in, not because it is seen directly, but because it provides a
>single explanation for why apples fall and the moon orbits the Earth.
Then it is seen. At least the effects of it, which can
be demonstrated over and over again, by watching a ball
drop. Now demonstrate apes turning into man, over and
over again. After all, according to you people, that
is an effect of evolution.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
WARNING: Exposure to the Son may prevent burning!
Phil Roberts
towards his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
<snip: can't be bothered>
You know, I'm thinking that you would be best in the killfile at
this point. You really do have nothing to say. Both you and
Roadrunner share the exact same characteristics:
If someone shows you evidence you cry "assumption!"
If someone states a fact you cry "opinion!"
If someone gets annoyed at your obtuseness you cry "emotional!"
You are happy to use scientific language to score empty points, yet
claim that any scientific evaluation of your own beliefs is a sham.
If asked to prove an assertation you will pick an argument in order
to detract from the point.
In other words, little more than a howling fanatic. You didn't come
here to discuss, or debate. You came here to defame, to lie, and to
preach your doctrine of delusional dishonesty. Bye now.
--
Phil Roberts | Without me its just aweso. | http://www.flatnet.net/
Boikat
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 23:24:41 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
>
> >> There isn't one single clear and gradual progression of
> >> fossils, from ape to man, nor has this supposed "common
> >> ancestor" ever been found...
> >
> >
> >There doesn't need to be.
>
> At least you admit it doesn't exist.
Dear moron: I said there did not need to be a "single clrear gradual
progression", as in a "generation by generation, continious rocord". Other
than that, there are plenty of intermediats. Enough to fulfill a *rational*
interpretation of the lineage.
>
>
> >The fossils that *have been found* are
> >sufficient, along with DNA, morphology and temporal distribution.
>
> Sufficient to show that apes and man exist, not that
> one came from the other.
It's enough to satisfy the predictive element of the ToE.
Boikat
Daniel Harper
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 06:28:26 +0000 (UTC), "Daniel Harper"
> <daniel...@terralink.net> posted thusly:
>
>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 21:11:27 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:20:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>>>>
>>>>Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the
>>>>term.
>>>
>>> No, they are not and calling them apes, does not make them apes.
>>> Evolutionists call them apes, because they believe man came from apes.
>>> That all this garbage consists of.
>>>
>>>
>>Oh, look, Pastor Dave's back. And I'll bet he still doesn't want to tell
>>me what evidence convinces him that the War of 1812 happened....
>>
>>
No response here?
>>>>> Is there even one single, clear and gradual progression of fossils,
>>>>> from this supposed common ancestor to man? No, there isn't.
>>>>
>>>>How many generations back can you trace your ancestors' skeletons?
>>>
>>> You ask this, to try to avoid admitting that you don't have the proof,
>>> yet claim it's reality.
>>>
>>>
>>There is no such thing as proof in science. There is only evidence. A
>>whole lot of it is collected here:
>>
>><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/index.html>
>>
>>(I've given you this link a whole lot of times. Are you planning on
>>reading it anytime soon?)
>
> Nothing there proved a thing about macroevolution, yet you keep pasting it
> in, as if it did.
>
Really? Explain.
>
>>> We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a medical fact that
>>> humans come from humans. We can watch it happen. We are discussing
>>> humans from apes. Show me that and then you can talk.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Humans don't always come from humans. I, personally, was hatched from an
>>egg.
>
> This, I am inclined to believe.
A dishonest snip, naturally. And you pretty much snipped everything of any
import to the post. In other words, you have absolutely nothing to say
about my criticisms of your position.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Ryan Scranton
Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 13:12:30 +0000 (UTC), R Brown
> <rbr...@hotmail.com> posted thusly:
>
> >
> >"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:vqsu90hvmrfso9r74...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 9 May 2004 22:47:12 +0000 (UTC),
> >> jaria...@hotmail.com (Jari Anttila) posted thusly:
> >>
> >> >n...@spam.com (jrh) wrote in message
> >news:<1ennc.127952$Qy.82748@fed1read04>...
> >> >
[snip]
> >> >astronomy,
> >>
> >> Astronomy doesn't prove billions of years.
> >>
> >However, billions of years is the best scientific explanation that accounts
> >for the evidence provided by astronomy.
>
> That is your opinion.
And the opinion of just about everyone who actually works in the field.
Coincidence?
>
>
> >> >Big Bang -cosmology...
> >>
> >> Which ignores certain facts.
> >>
> >Which you can't or won't provide.....
>
> Sure I can. Please explain evolution to the heavier
> elements and how the nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8
> (called the "helium mass 4 gap") were crossed. Don't
> know what I'm talking about? That's no surprise. You
> don't do any research, or you would not believe what
> you do.
>
>
That's not an issue for the Big Bang, it's an issue for stellar
nucleosynthesis. No one's tried to get significant production of
elements beyond helium from Big Bang nucleosynthesis since Gamow's time.
For those unfamiliar with the issue, what Dave's desperately trying to
cling to is the fact that Lithium-5 and and Beryllium-8 are unstable.
This comes up because, in stellar nucleosynthesis, you reach a point
where you have a stellar core that's composed mainly of hydrogen and
helium and you're not burning (in a nuclear sort of way) enough of the
former into the latter to support the core of the star against collapse.
If you add a hydrogen nucleus to a helium nucleus, you get Lithium-5,
whereas if you add two helium nuclei together you get Beryllium-8, both
of which decay back to their antecedents very quickly. In fact, none of
the possible nuclear configurations with atomic masses of 5 or 8 are
stable. This makes the progression up the periodic table somewhat of a
puzzle. The solution to this dillema, which can be found in just about
any text on stellar structure and/or evolution, is the triple helium
process.
The triple helium process (or 3-alpha process) takes two helium atoms to
get Beryllium-8 and then, before it can decay, combines that with a
third helium nucleus to get carbon-12, which is nice and stable. To get
this process to work, you need a much higher core temperature than you
need for regular hydrogen burning; the decay time for Be-7 is about
1e-16 seconds, so you need many, many interactions per second. Indeed,
you've gotta get from temperatures in the few million K up to
temperatures around 100 million K. Stars with masses below a few times
that of our sun can't achieve such core temperatures in a stable sort of
way (check out stellar evolution texts like Kippenhahn & Wiegert or
Clayton for the details or google on terms like "helium flash" and
"stellar degeneracy") and so they end up as white dwarfs. More massive
stars, which are already burning hotter than the lower mass guys, make
the transition and hang out on the asymptotic giant branch of the
Hertzsprung-Russell diagram for awhile before they eventually get to the
Iron-56 barrier and go supernova.
Of course, this solution to the question of why we see so much carbon in
stars relative to the elements between it and helium on the periodic
table was only worked out by Salpeter in 1952, so you can see why Dave
wouldn't be aware of it.
-Ryan
Daniel Harper
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 04:38:28 +0000 (UTC), papa_...@hotmail.com
> (VoiceOfReason) posted thusly:
>
>>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:<2s8t90he6s274a6pn...@4ax.com>...
>>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 21:12:29 +0000 (UTC), gal...@hotmail.com (Dave)
>>> posted thusly:
>>>
>>> >Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:<39ds90tj1t9jrs2k6...@4ax.com>...
>>> >>
>>> >> Have you seen apes turning into men? Is there even one single,
>>> >> clear and gradual progression of fossils, from this supposed common
>>> >> ancestor to man? No, there isn't. Yet it is fact, right?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >The scary thing is this; why are there fossils at all? And good grief
>>> >why are there so many fossils? That vast number of different dinosaurs
>>> >in a mere 6000 years? Yet Noah never even mentioned them.
>>>
>>> Did Noah have to? He didn't mention lots of creatures. So what?
>>
>>Noah wasn't the only person around at the time. But if there had been an
>>animal 20 feet tall with 6 inch teeth that could eat a human in one bite,
>>I think someone might have mentioned it in passing.
>
> Yup, yer right. And you can find it in the Bible.
Chapter and verse.
Daniel Harper
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 13:46:55 +0000 (UTC), "Steven J."
> <sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> posted thusly:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:4tru90p2513rdvgip...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 22:34:28 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
>>> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>>>
>>-- [snip]
>>>
>>> >Are humans mammals?
>>>
>>> Humans are humans. Classifying them as animals, does not make them
>>> animals. You parade these words as if they prove something. Tell me,
>>> who named man a primate and a mammal? Wasn't that the same men who
>>> believe that man came from ape? Tell me, how does that prove anything?
>>>
>>Actually, it was Karl von Linne (Carrolus Linnaeus), the 18th century
>>taxonomist often cited by creationists as a creationist founder of modern
>>science, who declared that humans were primates and mammals. He also
>>declared that the species that existed on the Earth now were the same
>>species originally created (although he modified this view for a few
>>domestic plants), so his motives seem hardly to have been to bolster
>>evolutionary views that didn't exist at the time.
>
> That's quite interesting. I did not know that. It seems that he was a
> believer in microevolution, as he should have been, but denied
> macroevolution, which he also should have done.
Linnaeus denied macroevolution in much the same way that Newton denied
relativity.
> It seems that he called
> man a primate, because of similarities to apes. I agree that there are
> similarities, but that doesn't necessarily equate to proper
> classification.
>
So how would you classify the natural world, exactly?
>
>>But as for Bryant's question: do you agree that, e.g. cats, cows,
>>dolphins, bats, etc. are mammals? What makes them all mammals -- why
>>does it make sense to put them all in that class? Is there any defining
>>trait of mammals that humans don't have? Is there any trait humans have
>>that excludes them from the Mammalia? A similar question can be raised
>>for primates -- we have the large brains, forward-facing eyes, thumbs,
>>and a host of other features that characterize primates and distinguish
>>them from other animals.
>
> You use these classifications to claim that man is an animal. Let's be
> honest about this.
>
Human beings are animals. Into which of the other five kingdoms would you
place us? Or would you posit a sixth kingdom, just for humans?
>
>>> >>>Do any gaps mean you aren't really related to the earlier ones?
>>> >>
>>> >> We are not discussing humans from humans. It is a medical fact that
>>> >> humans come from humans. We can watch it happen. We are discussing
>>> >> humans from apes. Show me that and then you can talk.
>>> >
>>> >Do you only believe things you can watch happen?
>>>
>>> Okay, then you believe that gravity is really little pink fairies
>>> pulling on things. After all, just because you can't see them, doesn't
>>> mean they aren't there.
>>>
>>Show me the testable predictions of little pink gravity fairies.
>
> And what predictions prove that man came from apes?
>
>
Predictions based on fossil evidence and morphological similarity.
>>Gravity is
>>believed in, not because it is seen directly, but because it provides a
>>single explanation for why apples fall and the moon orbits the Earth.
>
> Then it is seen. At least the effects of it, which can be demonstrated
> over and over again, by watching a ball drop. Now demonstrate apes
> turning into man, over and over again. After all, according to you
> people, that is an effect of evolution.
Historical events cannot be replicated in the way that you want them to
be. The evidence, however, maintains its ability to be observed by anyone,
and conclusions can be drawn about the history of life. Evolution happened.
Matt Davis
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 01:14:56 +0000 (UTC), AC
> <mightym...@hotmail.com> posted thusly:
>
>>On Sun, 9 May 2004 21:11:27 +0000 (UTC),
>>Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 14:20:01 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D.
>>> Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> posted thusly:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:37:10 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen apes turning into men?
>>>>
>>>>Humans *are* apes, in any biologically meaningful definition of the term.
>>>
>>> No, they are not and calling them apes, does not make
>>> them apes. Evolutionists call them apes, because they
>>> believe man came from apes. That all this garbage
>>> consists of.
>>
>>What an incredible argument. "Humans aren't apes because they're not".
>
> Even better is the argument that humans are apes
> because we call them apes.
Following that a bit further, we call them apes for several reasons. You
have yet to make an argument as to why those reasons aren't good enough to
call humans apes.
I say humans are apes. We're also mammals. We're warm blooded. We're
vertebrates. We're objects. We're 3 dimensional. There's really
nothing shameful about any of these descriptions. If we fit the criteria
for the definition, why not apply the definition? If you want to come up
with your own private definition of "ape," feel free to do so, but don't
get angry at other people for using the real definition.
Matt Davis
Please feel free to lay out your explanation for seeing light from
billions of light years away.
>>Big Bang -cosmology...
>
> Which ignores certain facts.
Which ones?
>>BTW, the (now obsolete) Steady State -cosmology was even more
>>evolutionistic, because according to it the universe had an
>>infinite age.
>
> And yet, many evolutionists claimed it was truth.
> Imagine that. But hey, we shouldn't doubt you NOW,
> right?
Such is the nature of science. Wrong conclusions are dropped and replaced
with revised ones. I trust people who adapt to new evidence far more than
I trust people who will tell me the same thing no matter what the
objective evidence says.
>>The only reason to reject the old age is biblical literalism.
>
> Or that it lacks any proof.
What evidence have you examined, and why did you come to a different
conclusion from the majority of the world's scientists?
Pastor Dave
<mi...@bed.uk.clara.net> posted thusly:
>> There isn't one single clear and gradual progression of
>> fossils, from ape to man,
>
>Australopiths, anatomical evidence, DNA evidence, etc, etc, etc.
Sorry, you failed again to provide proof.
>> nor has this supposed "common
Pastor Dave
(jrh) posted thusly:
><clip all>
>Pastor Dave,
>
>About the only thing clear in this "debate" is that evolutionists
>want to confuse biological evolution with evolutionism. It appears
>this effort has been so successfull their minds no longer perceive
>any difference between their belief system (frame of reference),
>and the information they use it to clasify.
>
>It is a sad day if those who post here are a cross section
>of the scientific community. The majority of posts are just
>lame attempts to divert from or obscure issues.
Agreed.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Read an amazing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Pastor Dave
<boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam*-*pastor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:sqru9052h1efan31e...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 23:24:41 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> posted thusly:
>>
>>
>> >> There isn't one single clear and gradual progression of
>> >> fossils, from ape to man, nor has this supposed "common
>> >> ancestor" ever been found...
>> >
>> >
>> >There doesn't need to be.
>>
>> At least you admit it doesn't exist.
>
>Dear moron: I said there did not need to be a "single clrear gradual
>progression", as in a "generation by generation, continious rocord". Other
>than that, there are plenty of intermediats. Enough to fulfill a *rational*
>interpretation of the lineage.
No, there isn't and the list that you people today
claim is it, will be disputed tomorrow, by the very
same people who claimed it was it. Lucy is stilled
claimed by many to be an ancestor of man, but now, most
experts recognize that it isn't. Of course, the
evolutionists in these newsgroups will still insist it
is, basing their claims on old information. And of
course, the Creationists told them right along it
wasn't and were laughed at.
>> >The fossils that *have been found* are
>> >sufficient, along with DNA, morphology and temporal distribution.
>>
>> Sufficient to show that apes and man exist, not that
>> one came from the other.
>
>It's enough to satisfy the predictive element of the ToE.
Yea, find fossils, claim they prove what you assumed
and then claim you predicted it. Sure.
--
ą Pastor Dave Raymond ą
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16