Discussion:
comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution
(too old to reply)
ZilentNoise
2007-06-13 21:55:13 UTC
Permalink
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
“Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He
spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,”
and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
Andy W
2007-06-13 23:35:35 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Jun, 22:55, ZilentNoise <***@malinator.com> wrote:

<trim>
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
Excellent... I was waiting for this.

The Creation book from which you keep copying and pasting is widely
regarded as appallingly, shockingly dishonest. One of the reasons for
this is "quote mining" such as this. Here's the full passage, in
context:

"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859,
had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever
changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not
only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being
questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists
who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the
prevailing view of Darwinism. . . .

Most of the debate will centre on one key question: Does the three
billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it
marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of
rapid change? Is Evolution a Tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely
accepted view - that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl - favours
the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American
Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are
putting their bets on the hare."

- James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p
88

The Creation book makes it sound as though eminent biologists question
whether evolution even happens. The full quote clearly shows that only
the mechanisms are under discussion, but there is agreement that
evolution occurs. This is a deliberate attempt at deception.
Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Quote mined again:

"Yet, for all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great
unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.

Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But
they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a
fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular
biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many
believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half
the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion
polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches
certainty in scientific terms."

- Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe", 1982, p 12

Hitching also has no credentials as a scientist and is into dowsing
and pyramid power among other things.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.

The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?

Andy
Phil MacDouglass
2007-06-14 06:44:54 UTC
Permalink
the "society" is prolly the false prophet! ot the false profit! hehe!
Post by Andy W
<trim>
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
Excellent... I was waiting for this.
The Creation book from which you keep copying and pasting is widely
regarded as appallingly, shockingly dishonest. One of the reasons for
this is "quote mining" such as this. Here's the full passage, in
"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859,
had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever
changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not
only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being
questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists
who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the
prevailing view of Darwinism. . . .
Most of the debate will centre on one key question: Does the three
billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it
marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of
rapid change? Is Evolution a Tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely
accepted view - that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl - favours
the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American
Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are
putting their bets on the hare."
- James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p
88
The Creation book makes it sound as though eminent biologists question
whether evolution even happens. The full quote clearly shows that only
the mechanisms are under discussion, but there is agreement that
evolution occurs. This is a deliberate attempt at deception.
Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
"Yet, for all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great
unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But
they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a
fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular
biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many
believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half
the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion
polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches
certainty in scientific terms."
- Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe", 1982, p 12
Hitching also has no credentials as a scientist and is into dowsing
and pyramid power among other things.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.
The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?
Andy
ZilentNoise
2007-06-14 09:49:33 UTC
Permalink
A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said
this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The
only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it
was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he
observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become
famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the
kind.”

Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not
the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution
really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary
series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open
war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of
[evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to
how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and
probably never shall.”

Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: “Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from
either side.” He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching
proportions, “potentially one of those times in science when, quite
suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary
evidence and a new one takes its place.” And Britain’s New Scientist
observed that “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a
growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary
theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics
have the highest intellectual credentials.”
Andy W
2007-06-14 23:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZilentNoise
A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said
this about it: "It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The
only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it
was full of colossal holes." Regarding Darwin's Origin of Species, he
observed: "We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become
famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the
kind."
Booker also stated: "A century after Darwin's death, we still have not
the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution
really took place-and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary
series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open
war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of
[evolutionary] sect urging some new modification." He concluded: "As to
how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and
probably never shall."
This was written in 1982 by a writer, not a scientist, and he too is
talking about the mechanisms of evolution, not whether it happened.
Post by ZilentNoise
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from
either side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching
proportions, "potentially one of those times in science when, quite
suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary
evidence and a new one takes its place." And Britain's New Scientist
observed that "an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a
growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary
theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics
have the highest intellectual credentials."
And more of the same. By all means keep posting the evidence that
shows how dishonest the WTBTS can be. I'm sure you're driving more
people away every day.

Andy
Ips-Switch
2007-06-15 00:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy W
And more of the same. By all means keep posting the evidence that
shows how dishonest the WTBTS can be. I'm sure you're driving more
people away every day.
Other JWs have told him he's driving people away. He threatens to have them
disfellowshipped and shunned for opposing him. He was reported to his
elders by several JWs from this NG and Jabbers lied to them, then he laughed
at what fools they were and how easily tricked they were. Most of those in
his congregation can't afford computers and many don't even speak English so
were easily conned by de Jabbers.
ZilentNoise
2007-06-15 15:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind. But the Bulletin of Chicago’s
Field Museum of Natural History commented: “Darwin’s theory of
[evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part
of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian
interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not
strictly true
MarkA
2007-06-18 21:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZilentNoise
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
DärFläken
2007-06-18 23:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by ZilentNoise
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
Yeah And I solar system is full with interdemensional life forms.
Sliders is truth.
Jabriol
2007-06-19 19:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by ZilentNoise
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
Yeah And I solar system is full with interdemensional life forms. Sliders
is truth.
your point is?
Michelle Malkin
2007-06-19 01:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by ZilentNoise
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
The fundies won't accept this. Every time a new
fossil is found showing how one form evolved
over time to another, they demand another one
in between. They will never be satisfied. It's a
stupid demand, but they seem to think it
means something.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
Post by MarkA
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
Mennia
2007-06-19 11:16:25 UTC
Permalink
“One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate
history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles
during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing.”—Life
Nature Library, The Reptiles, page 37.
Mennia
2007-06-19 11:17:56 UTC
Permalink
“Fossils, unfortunately, reveal very little about the creatures which we
consider the first true mammals.”—Life Nature Library, The Mammals, page 37.

“There is no missing link [that connects] mammals and reptiles.”—Life
Nature Library, The Reptiles, page 41.
Mennia
2007-06-19 11:19:09 UTC
Permalink
“There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”—Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
Wombat
2007-06-19 15:12:53 UTC
Permalink
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?

Wombat
Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister
2007-06-19 16:04:46 UTC
Permalink
I was working in the lab, late one night
when my eyes beheld an eerie sight
Post by Wombat
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
Wombat
Mennia is Jabriol, a Jehovah's Witness. How honest do you think they are?
Hazard a guess.
Matt Silberstein
2007-06-19 16:12:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:12:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , Wombat
Post by Wombat
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
You hit the nail on the head: it was 1960:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/pdfs/0104.pdf

And the title of the book is actually _Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds".

But leaving off the date was understandable since most of the
creationist mis-uses of this quote leave off the date.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
ZilentPanzer
2007-06-19 22:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:12:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , Wombat
Post by Wombat
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/pdfs/0104.pdf
And the title of the book is actually _Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds".
But leaving off the date was understandable since most of the
creationist mis-uses of this quote leave off the date.
creationists? where?
Matt Silberstein
2007-06-20 00:31:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:03:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentPanzer
Post by ZilentPanzer
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:12:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , Wombat
Post by Wombat
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/pdfs/0104.pdf
And the title of the book is actually _Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds".
But leaving off the date was understandable since most of the
creationist mis-uses of this quote leave off the date.
creationists? where?
http://www.icr.org/article/177/
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k81.htm
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/education/education2.html

Jabriol, you may not be a creationist, but you look to creationist
sources and present creationist arguments.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
~ Säblë ~
2007-06-20 00:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Silberstein
Post by ZilentPanzer
creationists? where?
http://www.icr.org/article/177/
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k81.htm
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/education/education2.html
Jabriol, you may not be a creationist, but you look to creationist
sources and present creationist arguments.
If it looks like a duck and it smells like a duck and it quacks like a
duck...........
--
SA.........
Wise men stare at the unknown, and boldly asks, WHY?
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling...
(God did it! God did it!)
~ Thus Spake God's Creator ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~><> ><>
ZilentPanzer
2007-06-20 01:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:03:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentPanzer
Post by ZilentPanzer
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:12:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , Wombat
Post by Wombat
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/pdfs/0104.pdf
And the title of the book is actually _Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds".
But leaving off the date was understandable since most of the
creationist mis-uses of this quote leave off the date.
creationists? where?
http://www.icr.org/article/177/
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k81.htm
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/education/education2.html
Jabriol, you may not be a creationist, but you look to creationist
sources and present creationist arguments.
No, I look for sources that help my viewpoint. Most of the quotes I
presented were by scientists, paleontologists, anthropologist, and I
also included Darwin.
Matt Silberstein
2007-06-20 05:15:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:40:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentPanzer
Post by ZilentPanzer
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:03:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentPanzer
Post by ZilentPanzer
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:12:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , Wombat
Post by Wombat
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/pdfs/0104.pdf
And the title of the book is actually _Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds".
But leaving off the date was understandable since most of the
creationist mis-uses of this quote leave off the date.
creationists? where?
http://www.icr.org/article/177/
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k81.htm
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/education/education2.html
Jabriol, you may not be a creationist, but you look to creationist
sources and present creationist arguments.
No, I look for sources that help my viewpoint. Most of the quotes I
presented were by scientists, paleontologists, anthropologist, and I
also included Darwin.
Yes. Quotes out of context. Quote decades or longer out of date.
Quotes that are dead wrong. None of that matters as long as it can
look like it supports your viewpoint. What you won't do is read
something with the idea of learning new material. You won't go and
read a biology book with the idea of learning about evolution. Instead
you grab stuff off creationist sites and then get huffy when you are
called a creationist.

Sorry, but I find your behavior sad. You seem healthier than you were
a few years ago and that is nice, but it is still sad.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
ZilentKnight
2007-06-20 09:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:40:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentPanzer
Post by ZilentPanzer
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:03:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentPanzer
Post by ZilentPanzer
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:12:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , Wombat
Post by Wombat
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/pdfs/0104.pdf
And the title of the book is actually _Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds".
But leaving off the date was understandable since most of the
creationist mis-uses of this quote leave off the date.
creationists? where?
http://www.icr.org/article/177/
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k81.htm
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/education/education2.html
Jabriol, you may not be a creationist, but you look to creationist
sources and present creationist arguments.
No, I look for sources that help my viewpoint. Most of the quotes I
presented were by scientists, paleontologists, anthropologist, and I
also included Darwin.
Yes. Quotes out of context.
Not at all, if the scientist made them it is with good reasons.
Post by Matt Silberstein
Quote decades or longer out of date.
So Darwin theory is out of date? his theories are older.
Matt Silberstein
2007-06-20 13:59:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:24:39 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
Post by ZilentKnight
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:40:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentPanzer
Post by ZilentPanzer
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:03:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentPanzer
Post by ZilentPanzer
Post by Matt Silberstein
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:12:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , Wombat
Post by Wombat
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/pdfs/0104.pdf
And the title of the book is actually _Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds".
But leaving off the date was understandable since most of the
creationist mis-uses of this quote leave off the date.
creationists? where?
http://www.icr.org/article/177/
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k81.htm
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/education/education2.html
Jabriol, you may not be a creationist, but you look to creationist
sources and present creationist arguments.
No, I look for sources that help my viewpoint. Most of the quotes I
presented were by scientists, paleontologists, anthropologist, and I
also included Darwin.
Yes. Quotes out of context.
Not at all, if the scientist made them it is with good reasons.
Sorry, Jabriol, but you have never bothered to go and read the actual
material so you have no idea.

Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
"The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
Post by ZilentKnight
Post by Matt Silberstein
Quote decades or longer out of date.
So Darwin theory is out of date? his theories are older.
Yes, Darwin's work is out of date: we have 150 year of work that has
added to it. Darwin gave us important, ground breaking material, but
he was not the be-all, end-all of evolutionary biology. It is
remarkable how well his stuff has stood up, but it is not even .01% of
what we know about evolution.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
ZilentKnight
2007-06-20 14:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Silberstein
Yes, Darwin's work is out of date: we have 150 year of work that has
added to it. Darwin gave us important, ground breaking material, but
he was not the be-all, end-all of evolutionary biology. It is
remarkable how well his stuff has stood up, but it is not even .01% of
what we know about evolution.
Sooo 1999 is old...

Back in 1966, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams wrote:
“I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was
first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much
more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.”
Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’
conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to
adapt to the changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating
anything new.”
Matt Silberstein
2007-06-20 16:01:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:52:35 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
Post by ZilentKnight
Post by Matt Silberstein
Yes, Darwin's work is out of date: we have 150 year of work that has
added to it. Darwin gave us important, ground breaking material, but
he was not the be-all, end-all of evolutionary biology. It is
remarkable how well his stuff has stood up, but it is not even .01% of
what we know about evolution.
Sooo 1999 is old...
Depending on the work, sure.
Post by ZilentKnight
“I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was
first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much
more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.”
Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’
conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to
adapt to the changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating
anything new.”
And that is correct. And here is one place where it is unfortunate
that you insist on using quotes rather than reading the material to
understand it. NS is usually a maintenance process. Mutations make
changes and most of those are eliminated by NS. So most of the time
there is little change (particularly little change in the external
aspects of organisms). This is the *equilibria* part of Punctuated
Equilibria: most species have little change for most of their
existence. But sometimes the changes are sufficiently advantageous to
spread in the population. Or the environment changes favoring a
different variety. And then NS helps lead to changes.

BTW, there are some serious problems with Jeffrey Schwartz work in
_Sudden Origins_, but that passage is not the problem you seem to
think.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
ZilentKnight
2007-06-20 16:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Silberstein
And that is correct. And here is one place where it is unfortunate
that you insist on using quotes rather than reading the material to
understand it. NS is usually a maintenance process. Mutations make
changes and most of those are eliminated by NS. So most of the time
there is little change (particularly little change in the external
aspects of organisms). This is the *equilibria* part of Punctuated
Equilibria: most species have little change for most of their
existence. But sometimes the changes are sufficiently advantageous to
spread in the population. Or the environment changes favoring a
different variety. And then NS helps lead to changes.
BTW, there are some serious problems with Jeffrey Schwartz work in
_Sudden Origins_, but that passage is not the problem you seem to
think.
In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like
“a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost
on the cutting-room floor.” Do the remaining one-in-a-thousand “frames”
really document the process of macroevolution? What does the fossil
record actually show? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, admits
that the record shows that for long periods of time, “little or no
evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some
200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers
agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups
of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many
species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the
evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the
level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from
common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the
fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”
Matt Silberstein
2007-06-20 18:02:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:13:20 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
Post by ZilentKnight
Post by Matt Silberstein
And that is correct. And here is one place where it is unfortunate
that you insist on using quotes rather than reading the material to
understand it. NS is usually a maintenance process. Mutations make
changes and most of those are eliminated by NS. So most of the time
there is little change (particularly little change in the external
aspects of organisms). This is the *equilibria* part of Punctuated
Equilibria: most species have little change for most of their
existence. But sometimes the changes are sufficiently advantageous to
spread in the population. Or the environment changes favoring a
different variety. And then NS helps lead to changes.
BTW, there are some serious problems with Jeffrey Schwartz work in
_Sudden Origins_, but that passage is not the problem you seem to
think.
In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like
“a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost
on the cutting-room floor.” Do the remaining one-in-a-thousand “frames”
really document the process of macroevolution?
Yep.
Post by ZilentKnight
What does the fossil
record actually show? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, admits
that the record shows that for long periods of time, “little or no
evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”
Right. There is no contradiction there. Change, and we are talking
here about the kind of gross physical change visible in the fossils,
occurs at different rates. Most of the time there is little or not
change, and then sometimes there is lots. The lots of change tends to
happen in smaller populations where the mutations can spread through
the population faster.
Post by ZilentKnight
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some
200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers
agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups
of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged,
No, the major groups do not appear suddenly. That is a bit of very old
stuff. The Cambrian *appears* like sudden appearance because that is
when calcified hard parts appear and so we get much better
fossilization. But we do have fossils of some Cambrian groups from
before that time, and we have some phyla with no fossil evidence in
the Cambrian.
Post by ZilentKnight
with many
species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the
evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the
level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from
common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the
fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”
Wells is not a biologist, he is a creationist. He went to get his
degree, as he has said, for the purpose of having a credential
creationist. He has also said that the Rev. Moon is his prophet and he
will do whatever the "Father" tells him to do.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
ZilentKnight
2007-06-20 18:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Silberstein
Wells is not a biologist, he is a creationist. He went to get his
degree, as he has said, for the purpose of having a credential
creationist.
Golly, I find it surprising for you would smear someone reputation like
this. Not everyone can walk in a school and get a molecular biology
degree from Berkly and Yale. Do you understand what you are implying here?
Matt Silberstein
2007-06-20 19:27:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:48:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentKnight
I notice that you have snipped out all of the science here. I pointed
out that Wells was right, but that it did not mean what you thought it
might mean. At some point Jabriol either start learning or admit you
really don't want to know.
Post by ZilentKnight
Post by Matt Silberstein
Wells is not a biologist, he is a creationist. He went to get his
degree, as he has said, for the purpose of having a credential
creationist.
Golly, I find it surprising for you would smear someone reputation like
this. Not everyone can walk in a school and get a molecular biology
degree from Berkly and Yale. Do you understand what you are implying here?
I am not implying anything, I stated it flat out. I say it flat out
because Wells has said so. Here it is in his own words:

"Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA

At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was
admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological
Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every
evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the
answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's
many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set
our sights high and accomplish great things.

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he
frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated
without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included
modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room
for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re-
interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of
human imagination.

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should
devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism.
When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary
graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the
opportunity to prepare myself for battle."
http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/darwin.htm


And I will make a more important claim: none of Wells' criticisms of
evolutionary biology are presented in any peer-reviewed publication.
At no point has Wells done any research into biology, at no point has
he produced a single fact that contradicts evolution theory. Wells
flashes his degree and trumpets his credentials, but never does any of
the work of a scientist.

Here you can read about the problems with Wells' book _Icons of
Evolution_: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Ips-Switch
2007-06-20 20:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Silberstein
Here you can read about the problems with Wells' book _Icons of
Evolution_: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
[brevity snips]

You can be sure jabbers is desperately hunting for something to prove Wells
isn't the crack pot he appears to be.
Budikka666
2007-06-20 21:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZilentKnight
In 2004, National Geographic described the fossil record as being like
"a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost
on the cutting-room floor."
Why is it that you can never actually give a proper reference? Is it
because you know as well as we do that your quotes are too pathetic to
withstand scrutiny?

The truth is that your out-of-context quote was not lifted from Nat.
Geog., but from "Answers in Genesis" - a creationist web site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

But worse than this (for you), I have that copy of Nat. Geog. It's
November 2004. The cover asks: "Was Darwin Wrong?" and the story,
which is written by David Quammen, starts on p4 and answers the
question resoundingly: "No. The evidence for evolution is
overwhelming."

And your quote? It's on p25. Here it is, with the succeeding
sentence unsnipped: "Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is
like a film of evolution from which 999 out of every 1,000 frames have
been lost on the cutting room floor. Still, Gingerich and others have
found dozens of intermediate forms - missing links that are no longer
missing."

See for yourself here:
http://www.ironcircus.com/blog/000267.html

In short, you and AiG are being thoroughly dishonest. Macroevolution
is well documented:
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/9s6cq
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/cqb3n
Examples 636-666: http://tinyurl.com/ay53o
Post by ZilentKnight
Do the remaining one-in-a-thousand "frames"
really document the process of macroevolution?
Your error here is in your knee-jerk assumption that this 1-in-a-1,000
metaphor is exact - that quite literally 1 frame exists, the next 999
are missing, another frame exists, the next 999 are missing, and so
on.

That's not the case. It's more like a case where, perhaps, the first
50 are missing, then we have 20 frames, then another 1,000 are
missing, then we have fifty frames, in that kind of fashion.

In short, it's perfectly possible, in certain locations, to find
uninterrupted sequences of evolution preserved in the fossil record as
my references above prove.

If this was absolutely all there was, it would be spotty evidence, but
it would still be far, far more solid scientific evidence than the
creationists have ever produced.

And the fact is that every pertinent scientific discovery since
Darwin's revelation has confirmed the basic theory that he proposed:
anatomy, embryology, biochemistry, genetics, and so on.

Even one transitional fossil series disproves special creation.
Post by ZilentKnight
What does the fossil
record actually show? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist,
Oooh, 'e's a staunch!
Post by ZilentKnight
admits
that the record shows that for long periods of time, "little or no
evolutionary change accumulates in most species."
And then we see the transitions. Why is it that you think actual
science is done by batting back-and-forth the quotes of real
scientists out-of-context?
Post by ZilentKnight
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some
200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers
agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups
of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged,
There's evidence of life for almost two billion years prior to the so-
called Cambrian "explosion". As Richard Dawkins explains here:
http://tinyurl.com/524c5
"As it happens, recent molecular clock evidence indicates that the
'Cambrian Explosion' may never have happened. Far from the major phyla
diverging from a point at the beginning of the Cambrian, Wray,
Levinton and Shapiro (1996) present evidence that the common ancestors
of the major phyla are staggered through hundreds of millions of years
back in the Precambrian."
Post by ZilentKnight
with many
species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the
evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: "At the
level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from
common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the
fossil and molecular evidence, it's not even a well-supported theory."
Jonathan Wells is a discredited fanatic.

Now, once again, as I have for several years, I've responded to *all*
of your claims and assertions. When are *you* going to respond to my
request that you present your positive scientific evidence *for* your
position?

Or must we be forced into the conclusion that you have no evidence and
this is why you're reduced to the pathetic position of having
absolutely nothing to offer but sour-grapes whining about the solid,
scientific Theory of Evolution?

Budikka

Kathy
2007-06-20 00:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZilentPanzer
creationists? where?
Oh... . tell us about terraforming jabbers. How does what you claim to
believe omit the need for a ID?
Apostate
2007-06-20 01:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Many details of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions
contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the
nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations—or
random changes—in the genetic code can produce alterations in the
descendants of plants and animals. In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel
Prize winner and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed:
“Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the
chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even
more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the
guidance of natural selection.”

Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that
mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new
families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold
claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of
genetic research has revealed.
God's Creator! (HTML & TEXT)
2007-06-20 02:26:49 UTC
Permalink
[.........snipped....]
Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that
mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new
families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold
claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of
genetic research has revealed.
Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*


You may want to look at these interesting links also...

---> http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/9418-mutation-0
---> http://www.funreports.com/fun/24-05-2007/1516-cat_wings-0


God's Creator!
( Sorry, I don't forgive shit! )
8-)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Psstt.... Hey! ---> USED GODS SALE! : ---> http://www.godchecker.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apostate
2007-06-20 02:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Consider the implications of the facts. If highly trained
scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing
and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent
process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot
transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how,
exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
Michael Gray
2007-06-20 04:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Apostate
Consider the implications of the facts.
Ok.
Post by Apostate
If highly trained
scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing
and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent
process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot
transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how,
exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
Where are the "facts"?
I only see questions based on the most abject ignorance.

Here is a fact for you:
You are a spamming ignoramus.

--
Kathy
2007-06-20 21:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gray
Post by Apostate
Consider the implications of the facts.
Ok.
Post by Apostate
If highly trained
scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing
and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent
process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot
transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how,
exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
Where are the "facts"?
I only see questions based on the most abject ignorance.
You are a spamming ignoramus.
He is more than that. He's the well known and despised troll JABRIOL!
Remember, the scumbag has over 140 socks now and pops new ones every day.
Post by Michael Gray
--
Jeckyl
2007-06-20 06:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Consider the implications of the facts. If highly trained scientists
are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting
favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a
better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original
species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution
supposed to have taken place?
That has not been proven .. simply prematurely concluded by fundamentalist
ID promoters
ZilentKnight
2007-06-20 09:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Consider the implications of the facts. If highly trained scientists
are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting
favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a
better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original
species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution
supposed to have taken place?
That has not been proven .. simply prematurely concluded by fundamentalist
ID promoters
Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor
those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable
life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as
species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose
gene mutations made them most fit for their new environment. As a
result, evolutionists postulate, these isolated groups eventually
developed into totally new species.

As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that
mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals.
Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim
that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new
species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling
example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13
species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known
as Darwin’s finches.”

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant began
studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought,
finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those
with smaller beaks. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the
primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings
were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues
the brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the
islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but
awkward facts. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller
beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate
student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that
they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant
wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is
oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The
researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches
were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the
parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding
continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one
within 200 years.
Michael Gray
2007-06-20 12:01:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:26:26 GMT, ZilentKnight
Post by ZilentKnight
Post by Jeckyl
Consider the implications of the facts. If highly trained scientists
are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting
favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a
better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original
species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution
supposed to have taken place?
That has not been proven .. simply prematurely concluded by fundamentalist
ID promoters
Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor
those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable
:


Why are you passing off this obviously plagiarized text as your own?

Are you a JW, and therefore inherently and deliberately viciously
dishonest?
Or is there another explanation?

--
~ Säblë ~
2007-06-20 21:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gray
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:26:26 GMT, ZilentKnight
Post by ZilentKnight
Post by Jeckyl
Consider the implications of the facts. If highly trained scientists
are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting
favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a
better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original
species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution
supposed to have taken place?
That has not been proven .. simply prematurely concluded by
fundamentalist
ID promoters
Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor
those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable
Why are you passing off this obviously plagiarized text as your own?
He does it to piss people off and harass them in to replying. Notice he's
using other people's names and email addresses again as well.
Post by Michael Gray
Are you a JW, and therefore inherently and deliberately viciously
dishonest?
Or is there another explanation?
I think we all know by now this kind of negative behavior gets him replies.
When he knows he pisses someone off or frustrates them - that's his reward.
That's were his sick warped gratification comes in. He hasn't learned one
thing in the 16 years he's been at this. Why? Because a JWs mind is CLOSED
to everything but what they read in the Watchtower literature, pro creation
sites and their bibles.

BTW... he *IS* a creationist. I checked a few days ago and the WTS is still
teaching the creation account as found in Genesis. The only difference is
they believe it took 7,000 years instead of 7 days.
--
SA..........
All trees (like the WTS) can be judged by the fruit (Jabriols) they produce.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.jehovahs-witn/msg/a566a727e31d5be2
Jeckyl
2007-06-20 13:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Consider the implications of the facts. If highly trained scientists
are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting
favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do
a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an
original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was
macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
That has not been proven .. simply prematurely concluded by
fundamentalist ID promoters
Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those
life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms
would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species
spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene
mutations made them most fit for their new environment. As a result,
evolutionists postulate, these isolated groups eventually developed into
totally new species.
As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that
mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals.
Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim
that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new
species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling example of
speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of
finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s
finches.”
In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant began
studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought,
finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those
with smaller beaks. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the
primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were
assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the
brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the
islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”
However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but awkward
facts. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks
again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student
Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen
“a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant wrote that “the
population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth”
each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of
the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing
offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant
concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the
fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years.
Sounds like evolution at work.
Mennia
2007-06-19 18:39:22 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Jun, 13:19, Mennia impersonated by sociopath JABRIOL
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
Sure he would! Has jabbers every been honest? LOL!!!!!!! But then, what
can we expect from a "creationist" desperate to sway people to his way of
thinking. ;-)
Wombat
Jabriol
2007-06-19 19:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mennia
On 19 Jun, 13:19, Mennia impersonated by sociopath JABRIOL
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?
Sure he would! Has jabbers every been honest? LOL!!!!!!! But then, what
can we expect from a "creationist" desperate to sway people to his way of
thinking. ;-)
And get people murdered............. your point?
Post by Mennia
Wombat
MarkA
2007-06-19 16:59:31 UTC
Permalink
"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
Name one structure on a bird that cannot be produced by a slight
modification of an existing structure on a reptile.

Name any structure on a human that can't be produced by a slight change in
an existing structure on a chimp.

Explain why apes and humans share the same broken gene for producing
vitamin C, while most every other mammal has an intact gene.
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
ZilentPanzer
2007-06-19 22:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Name any structure on a human that can't be produced by a slight change in
an existing structure on a chimp.
bring on the Manpanzee.
Ips-Switch
2007-06-20 00:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZilentPanzer
Post by MarkA
Name any structure on a human that can't be produced by a slight change in
an existing structure on a chimp.
bring on the Manpanzee.
How is that answering the question? You've been on the manpanzee BS for 10
years now.
~ Säblë ~
2007-06-19 18:36:14 UTC
Permalink
“There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable
change from reptile to bird was achieved.”—Biology and Comparative
Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
How old is this material Antonio-jabbers?
--
SA....
"Jabriol wants to be loved; failing this, to be admired; failing this, to be
feared; failing even this, to be hated and despised. Jabriol wants to
arouse
some sort of feeling in people. The soul shrinks from the void and wants
contact at any price." ~ Hjalmar Soderberg ~
==========================================================
Augray
2007-06-20 21:32:07 UTC
Permalink
“There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”—Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.
But immediately following it is this:

That the birds owe their origin to reptiles can be argued along
two lines. First, the evidence of the oldest bird in the
geological record clearly indicates reptilian affinities. Second,
if one postulates the stages that would seem to be demanded by
such an evolutionary change, there are appropriate materials
available in certain reptile groups. [Swinton 1960, 1]

Also, the article is "The Origin of Birds", and it's in "Biology and
Comparative Physiology of Birds", Volume I (edited by A. J. Marshall,
New York: Academic Press.)
Mennia
2007-06-19 11:20:41 UTC
Permalink
“For the whole Tertiary period, which involves something like 60 to
80 million years we have to read the history of primate evolution from a
few handfuls of broken bones and teeth.”—June 1956, Scientific American,
page 98, by Eiseley.

“Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the
emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete.”—Life Nature
Library, The Primates, page 15
Mennia
2007-06-19 11:21:23 UTC
Permalink
“Unfortunately, the early stages of man’s evolutionary progress along
his own individual line remain a total mystery.”—Life Nature Library,
The Primates, page 177.

“Even this relatively recent history is shot through with uncertainties;
authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about
details.”—Mankind Evolving, page 168, by Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Mennia
2007-06-19 11:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
provide an excellent picture of it, prove it conclusively. Then they say:

‘No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.’
Kathy
2007-06-19 11:32:06 UTC
Permalink
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.
Jabriol
2007-06-19 19:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kathy
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.
your point is what?
Wombat
2007-06-19 15:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mennia
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
'No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.'
You losing your touch. No out of date cites, carefully with
suppressed dates. Just the bald assertion. Do you enjoy lying.
Have you ever heard of KNM-WT 15000. How do YOU explain it?

Wombat
Jabriol
2007-06-19 19:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wombat
Post by Mennia
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
'No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.'
You losing your touch. No out of date cites, carefully with
suppressed dates. Just the bald assertion. Do you enjoy lying.
yes.......... your point is?
Post by Wombat
Have you ever heard of KNM-WT 15000. How do YOU explain it?
Wombat
MarkA
2007-06-19 16:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mennia
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
'No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.'
Suppose a small population of animals are busy evolving some new structure
or skill. When sufficiently developed, the new structure enables them to
expand into a vast new ecological niche, so that within a few generations
comes forth a huge population of creatures with the new structure,
enjoying a talent that its ancestors didn't have. What would that look
like in the fossil record? Think real hard, now.....
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
DärFläken
2007-06-19 19:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Mennia
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
'No fossils on how life began, none on how microscopic life began, none
on how plant life began, none on how insects began, none on how fishes
began, none on how amphibians began, none on how reptiles began, none on
how mammals began, none on how birds began, none on how apes began, and
none on how man began.'
Suppose a small population of animals are busy evolving some new structure
or skill. When sufficiently developed, the new structure enables them to
expand into a vast new ecological niche, so that within a few generations
comes forth a huge population of creatures with the new structure,
enjoying a talent that its ancestors didn't have. What would that look
like in the fossil record? Think real hard, now.....
You're asking the troll JABBERS to think? Never happen. :-D He's a real
kOoK claiming he don't believe in evolution or creation. He believes in
terraforming!!!!!!!!!! BTW, he's full of shit about the WTS now teaching
that the Genesis account should be ignored.
Post by MarkA
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
Andy W
2007-06-19 22:59:16 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Jun, 12:24, Mennia aka JW creationist Jabriol
Post by Mennia
Evolutionists say that fossils give the best evidence of evolution,
provide an excellent picture of it, prove it conclusively.
No, they don't. That's the creationist straw-man version of evolution.
The fossil record is great: it shows some of the species that were
alive in the past and provides strong evidence that evolution occured.
By itself, no it is not enough to prove it. But taken alongside all
the other lines of evidence and the case is cast iron.

Andy
Jabriol
2007-06-19 19:12:30 UTC
Permalink
“Unfortunately, the early stages of man’s evolutionary progress along his
own individual line remain a total mystery.”—Life Nature Library, The
Primates, page 177.
“Even this relatively recent history is shot through with uncertainties;
authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about
details.”—Mankind Evolving, page 168, by Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Your point is?
Jabriol
2007-06-19 19:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mennia
“Fossils, unfortunately, reveal very little about the creatures which we
consider the first true mammals.”—Life Nature Library, The Mammals, page 37.
“There is no missing link [that connects] mammals and reptiles.”—Life
Nature Library, The Reptiles, page 41.
What is your point?
Ips-Switch
2007-06-14 23:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy W
<trim>
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
Excellent... I was waiting for this.
This is an excellent example of Jabber's habitual lying-for-god. He does
what the Watchtower Society does in their literature. They're famous for
taking things out of context for their own use.......
~saba gracile~
2007-06-15 14:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy W
<trim>
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."
Excellent... I was waiting for this.
The Creation book from which you keep copying and pasting is widely
regarded as appallingly, shockingly dishonest. One of the reasons for
this is "quote mining" such as this. Here's the full passage, in
"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859,
had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever
changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not
only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being
questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists
who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the
prevailing view of Darwinism. . . .
Most of the debate will centre on one key question: Does the three
billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it
marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of
rapid change? Is Evolution a Tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely
accepted view - that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl - favours
the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American
Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are
putting their bets on the hare."
- James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p
88
The Creation book makes it sound as though eminent biologists question
whether evolution even happens. The full quote clearly shows that only
the mechanisms are under discussion, but there is agreement that
evolution occurs. This is a deliberate attempt at deception.
Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
"Yet, for all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great
unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But
they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a
fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular
biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many
believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half
the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion
polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches
certainty in scientific terms."
- Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe", 1982, p 12
Hitching also has no credentials as a scientist and is into dowsing
and pyramid power among other things.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.
The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?
Andy
So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million years?
Surely a theory that's so grounded and nailed to the wall with evidence will
be able to predict what happens to organisms in the future? Or does that too
have to be wildly imagined? I thought so. I've never heard anyone try to
predict what a lion will be, what a giraffe would be etc.. hm. Perhaps because
it's embarrassing to the mighty scientists to do that? but why? because that
would be_imagining_ things.. lol.. just like they do with the animals evolusion,
but hey! that's facts!

Saba
Andy W
2007-06-15 23:34:14 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Jun, 15:42, JW Creationist "~saba gracile~"
<***@frisurf.no> wrote:
<trim for brevity>
Post by ~saba gracile~
Post by Andy W
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.
The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?
Andy
So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million years?
Surely a theory that's so grounded and nailed to the wall with evidence will
be able to predict what happens to organisms in the future? Or does that too
have to be wildly imagined? I thought so. I've never heard anyone try to
predict what a lion will be, what a giraffe would be etc.. hm. Perhaps because
it's embarrassing to the mighty scientists to do that? but why? because that
would be_imagining_ things.. lol.. just like they do with the animals evolusion,
but hey! that's facts!
Saba
Do you get some sort of kick out of parading your monstrous ignorance
in public? You quite obviously don't know the first thing about
anything you post. Or is being wrong some sort of hobby for you? Try
to get at least a basic understanding of the subject before you go
flailing in like a drunken elephant.

Evolution theory does not say that the future forms of species can be
predicted, and never did, in fact it says pretty much the opposite:
you can never say what a species will develop into in the future. What
you can say is that the species will adapt to whatever environment it
finds itself in, or likely die off, but you can't say how that will
come about.

And if I had told you that in a million years, lions will be purple,
how are you ever going to check?

Andy
ZilentNoise
2007-06-15 23:59:58 UTC
Permalink
The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin “was embarrassed by the
fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would . . .
the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.” In fact now, after
more than a century of collecting fossils, “we have even fewer examples
of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time,” explained the
Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more abundant fossil
evidence available today shows that some of the examples that were once
used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all.

This failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has
disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven
Stanley spoke of “the general failure of the record to display gradual
transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil
record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].”
Niles Eldredge also admitted: “The pattern that we were told to find for
the last 120 years does not exist.”
Kathy
2007-06-16 01:39:06 UTC
Permalink
"ZilentNoise" <***@malinator.com> wrote in message news:2KFci.432$***@trnddc04...

You missed this one jabbers.
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To
suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems,
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." More than a century has
passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary,
since Darwin's time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is
even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: "The
eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have
done better.
Oh, no! Darwin admits that the structure of the human eye invalidates
his theory and abandons it!
Once again the Creation book is caught out in a lie. Actual quote in
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense
of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox
populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in
science.
Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and
imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each
grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if
further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful
to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty
of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
considered as subversive of the theory."
- The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859, p 133.
Darwin does not say the eye could not have evolved, he says he can
understand that people might have trouble accepting that it did. The
evidence suggests that eyes evolved several times independently.
Apparently they're easy.
Read it and weep, JW's, this is the Watchtower Society at its finest,
lying as hard as it can. How can this be the One True Religion if it
can't tell the truth?
Andy
k***@yahoo.com
2007-06-16 01:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy W
<trim for brevity>
Post by ~saba gracile~
Post by Andy W
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.
The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?
Andy
So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million years?
Surely a theory that's so grounded and nailed to the wall with evidence will
be able to predict what happens to organisms in the future? Or does that too
have to be wildly imagined? I thought so. I've never heard anyone try to
predict what a lion will be, what a giraffe would be etc.. hm. Perhaps because
it's embarrassing to the mighty scientists to do that? but why? because that
would be_imagining_ things.. lol.. just like they do with the animals evolusion,
but hey! that's facts!
Saba
Do you get some sort of kick out of parading your monstrous ignorance
in public? You quite obviously don't know the first thing about
anything you post. Or is being wrong some sort of hobby for you? Try
to get at least a basic understanding of the subject before you go
flailing in like a drunken elephant.
Evolution theory does not say that the future forms of species can be
you can never say what a species will develop into in the future. What
you can say is that the species will adapt to whatever environment it
finds itself in, or likely die off, but you can't say how that will
come about.
And if I had told you that in a million years, lions will be purple,
how are you ever going to check?
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Andy,
No, I like to parade othere people's monstrous personalities out on
this forum just to see who likes to bully people. I see I have one
now. So here is yours, you titanic ego is sinking faster than the
ship in 1912. I have more than a basic understanding of evolution and
if you don't know what the Cambridge University tests published say,
who is the drunken flailing elephant here? You would I say, keep up
and pay attention of take your ADD meds. I never said anything like
what you posted. You simply saw someone who you thought you could
jump on. Kiss my ass. I have studied evolution since you were in
diapers, or you would not have responded like you did. Notice
ZilentNoise response, very professonial, not trying to embarress
anyone. One question: Why in the hell would a lion be purple in a
million years? Only one reason. The fauna it is hiding in to attack
it's prey would be purple. While you can't always give a reason,
there is logical answer to a question. Ass. K.W.
Andy W
2007-06-16 22:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Post by Andy W
<trim for brevity>
Post by ~saba gracile~
Post by Andy W
Again, he's talking of mechanisms here not whether evolution happens.
The whole book is packed with this sort of thing. Over and over again
it makes statements that are, on closer investigation, found to be
wrong in ways that can only be deliberate. Every JW should read this
book, and then read the numerous criticisms of it around the web, and
ask themselves how a group which claims to be God's organisation on
Earth could have produced such a dishonest, deceitful work. Who is a
liar and the father of the lie?
Andy
So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million years?
Surely a theory that's so grounded and nailed to the wall with evidence will
be able to predict what happens to organisms in the future? Or does that too
have to be wildly imagined? I thought so. I've never heard anyone try to
predict what a lion will be, what a giraffe would be etc.. hm. Perhaps because
it's embarrassing to the mighty scientists to do that? but why? because that
would be_imagining_ things.. lol.. just like they do with the animals evolusion,
but hey! that's facts!
Saba
Do you get some sort of kick out of parading your monstrous ignorance
in public? You quite obviously don't know the first thing about
anything you post. Or is being wrong some sort of hobby for you? Try
to get at least a basic understanding of the subject before you go
flailing in like a drunken elephant.
Evolution theory does not say that the future forms of species can be
you can never say what a species will develop into in the future. What
you can say is that the species will adapt to whatever environment it
finds itself in, or likely die off, but you can't say how that will
come about.
And if I had told you that in a million years, lions will be purple,
how are you ever going to check?
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Andy,
No, I like to parade othere people's monstrous personalities out on
this forum just to see who likes to bully people. I see I have one
now. So here is yours, you titanic ego is sinking faster than the
ship in 1912. I have more than a basic understanding of evolution and
if you don't know what the Cambridge University tests published say,
who is the drunken flailing elephant here? You would I say, keep up
and pay attention of take your ADD meds. I never said anything like
what you posted. You simply saw someone who you thought you could
jump on. Kiss my ass. I have studied evolution since you were in
diapers, or you would not have responded like you did. Notice
ZilentNoise response, very professonial, not trying to embarress
anyone. One question: Why in the hell would a lion be purple in a
million years? Only one reason. The fauna it is hiding in to attack
it's prey would be purple. While you can't always give a reason,
there is logical answer to a question. Ass. K.W
Mmhmm. And who are you and which conversation were you reading? I have
never responded to you before. I was replying to Saba Gracile and I
only flamed her after I read the half-dozen or so nonsensical and
abusive items she posted in this thread. Why does this have anything
to do with you?

Here's a few things you appear to be unaware of:

ZilentNoise and Saba are Jehovah's Witnesses and the kind of people
you said in another post you would chase away with a firearm.
ZilentNoise is the latest of dozens of nyms used by a JW best known as
Jabriol. He is posting chunks from an old Jehovah's Witness
publication on creationism versus evolution in this thread, most of
which contain misquotes from famous evolutionists intended to make it
look as though they doubt evolution happens. Most of his posts are
nothing but cut and paste, no original content. I, in turn, have been
posting the quotes in full in order to show up what he's doing. This
thread is, on the whole, about Jabriol trying to discredit evolution
as usual, and everyone else pointing out why he's wrong. I don't know
where you've got the idea from that anyone is discussing human
evolution specifically, least of all myself.

The purple lions thing: I was not trying to claim that I thought lions
would actually be purple in the future. It was a deliberately absurd
example to show that it would never be possible to know that any
answer to such a "what will happen in the far future" question was
correct or not.

Andy
Lieken
2007-06-16 23:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Biologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different
species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from
those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others.
Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned
places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up
that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists
call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary
existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new
one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias
in logic. A neutral expression would be "intermediate" forms.

Much emphasis is put on the search for these "transitional" forms. As
an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in
oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for
breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage
in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the
logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living
today, the same fish that is found in the ancient fossils. Rather than
a stage in evolution.
Ben Kaufman
2007-06-17 01:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lieken
Biologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different
species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from
those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others.
Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned
places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up
that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists
call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary
existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new
one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias
in logic. A neutral expression would be "intermediate" forms.
Much emphasis is put on the search for these "transitional" forms. As
an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in
oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for
breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage
in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the
logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living
today, the same fish that is found in the ancient fossils. Rather than
a stage in evolution.
"...Both the modern lungfish and the coelacanths are ancient lines of fish which
were common in the Devonian* seas. But neither groups are likely to have given
rise directly to the amphibians; the LUNGFISH do not have a suitable fin
structure, and the COELACANTHS are a marine group and do not have a lung.

The most likely ancestors of the amphibians were the RHIPIDISTIANS - a type of
crossopterygian fish (quite closely related to the coelacanth line) which were
common in the Permian* ...."

http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biomedia/units/amph3.htm

Ben
Atheist are Stooges
2007-06-17 03:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Kaufman
Post by Lieken
Biologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different
species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from
those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others.
Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned
places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up
that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists
call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary
existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new
one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias
in logic. A neutral expression would be "intermediate" forms.
Much emphasis is put on the search for these "transitional" forms. As
an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in
oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for
breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage
in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the
logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living
today, the same fish that is found in the ancient fossils. Rather than
a stage in evolution.
"...Both the modern lungfish and the coelacanths are ancient lines of fish which
were common in the Devonian* seas. But neither groups are likely to have given
rise directly to the amphibians; the LUNGFISH do not have a suitable fin
structure, and the COELACANTHS are a marine group and do not have a lung.
The most likely ancestors of the amphibians were the RHIPIDISTIANS - a type of
crossopterygian fish (quite closely related to the coelacanth line) which were
common in the Permian* ...."
http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biomedia/units/amph3.htm
Ben
Great, just what the world needs another atheist jew.
Applied for the aclu yet?
k***@yahoo.com
2007-06-17 07:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atheist are Stooges
Post by Ben Kaufman
Post by Lieken
Biologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different
species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from
those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others.
Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned
places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up
that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists
call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary
existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new
one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias
in logic. A neutral expression would be "intermediate" forms.
Much emphasis is put on the search for these "transitional" forms. As
an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in
oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for
breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage
in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the
logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living
today, the same fish that is found in the ancient fossils. Rather than
a stage in evolution.
"...Both the modern lungfish and the coelacanths are ancient lines of fish which
were common in the Devonian* seas. But neither groups are likely to have given
rise directly to the amphibians; the LUNGFISH do not have a suitable fin
structure, and the COELACANTHS are a marine group and do not have a lung.
The most likely ancestors of the amphibians were the RHIPIDISTIANS - a type of
crossopterygian fish (quite closely related to the coelacanth line) which were
common in the Permian* ...."
http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biomedia/units/amph3.htm
Ben
Great, just what the world needs another atheist jew.
Applied for the aclu yet?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Why would an atheist jew bother you? I'm agnostic myself, and a
reformed 1st Baptist. They can be hard to deal with, but with their
history, they will be. They can be just as wrong about evolution as
the next person. The religion, or lack thereof should be of no
concern to anyone. K.W.
Budikka666
2007-06-17 11:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Any time you can find the GUTS to face me in a formal debate on this
god of yours, I'm right here waiting, COWARD, whilst you're running as
fast as you can. What does that tell everyone about the appalling
weakness of your position?

And now we find that you're an ignorant rabid bigot, too? Why is
*that* not a surprise?

Budikka
duke
2007-06-17 17:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Budikka666
Any time you can find the GUTS to face me in a formal debate on this
god of yours, I'm right here waiting, COWARD, whilst you're running as
fast as you can. What does that tell everyone about the appalling
weakness of your position?
Never happen, bud the dud. You run away faster than we can catch you for that
debate.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Michael Gray
2007-06-17 02:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Escaped from the asylum again?

--
Kelsey Bjarnason
2007-06-16 12:57:09 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by ~saba gracile~
So how do the evolutionists imagine a lion will look like in a million years?
We don't.
Post by ~saba gracile~
Surely a theory that's so grounded and nailed to the wall with
evidence will be able to predict what happens to organisms in the
future?
Why do you think such patently unscientific nonsense?

Look, sport, we have a pretty goat-damned good idea how weather works,
too, but we can't predict long-term effects worth a damn, precisely
*because* of how weather works. It's a dynamic system. So is evolution.
You can know the processes of either absolutely and be completely unable
to predict long-term outcomes of either, and this has absolutely no impact
whatsoever on their validity.
Post by ~saba gracile~
Or does that too have to be wildly imagined?
Nope. If you're ignorant, you imagine; if you're educated you realize the
question itself is silly.

Oh, wait... you posited the question; obviously you don't think it's
silly. That puts you firmly in the other camp, then, doesn't it?
--
I predict / prophecy in Jesus name that: John F. Kennedy will publicly
reappear, amaze the world, take world power, and is in fact the
‘beast’ of the Revelation. - John Prewett
Cary Kittrell
2007-06-14 00:04:05 UTC
Permalink
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
“Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He
spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,”
and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?

Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.


-- cary
Atheist are Stooges
2007-06-14 02:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cary Kittrell
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the
non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?
Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.
-- cary
What are the reasons for a skeptic to defend their position on the issue of
God?

Do they believe that he will get a reward in the after life? I would venture
a no.

Are they motivated by an obedience to a higher power? Again no

Do they believe that it helps their chance that he will go to heaven? No
probably not.

Do they do it to shore up his belief system? Hmmm...

You see the reason that Kitrell finds that motivation in others is because
it's the most likely motivation for debating about God that she has. For
what other reason is there for her to waste her time with issue? Do realize
she will likely come up with some snappy reason now. But it's her first knee
jerk reaction I find the most telling. However any snappy reason she comes
up with is probably be a knee slapper for she is loaded with sharp wit.
<snickers>
Cary Kittrell
2007-06-14 17:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atheist are Stooges
Post by Cary Kittrell
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?
Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.
-- cary
What are the reasons for a skeptic to defend their position on the issue of
God?
You mean my position? My position is the same as my position regarding
the existence of life of Europa -- nothing I have come across of leads me
to believe that there is any there there.

And as with the case of Europa, if evidence for suspecting that
there is in fact a there there were to emerge, I am perfectly open
to accepting its reality.

-- cary
MarkA
2007-06-14 19:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cary Kittrell
Post by Atheist are Stooges
Post by Cary Kittrell
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?
Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.
-- cary
What are the reasons for a skeptic to defend their position on the issue of
God?
You mean my position? My position is the same as my position regarding
the existence of life of Europa -- nothing I have come across of leads me
to believe that there is any there there.
And as with the case of Europa, if evidence for suspecting that
there is in fact a there there were to emerge, I am perfectly open
to accepting its reality.
-- cary
See, you atheists are SO wishy-washy. Changing your minds just because
new information becomes available. You should be like the theists: latch
on to something that was believed thousands of years ago, and don't change
your mind no matter what!

I remember something that Colbert said at the White House correspondents
dinner: George Bush believes on Thursday the same thing that he believed
on Tuesday. Regardless of what happened on Wednesday!
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
~saba gracile~
2007-06-15 15:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarkA
Post by Cary Kittrell
Post by Atheist are Stooges
Post by Cary Kittrell
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species
was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of
Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the
causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
"Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He
spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,"
and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
I'm curious: do you understand the difference between the phenomenon
of evolution -- as opposed to the theories proposed to explain the
mechanisms of speciation?
Anyone familiar with Elridge's work would no more think that
Elridge doubts the basic phenomenon of evolution than an atheist,
seeing the differences in doctrine between Billy Graham and
the Pope, should conclude that one of them no longer believes
in God.
-- cary
What are the reasons for a skeptic to defend their position on the issue of
God?
You mean my position? My position is the same as my position regarding
the existence of life of Europa -- nothing I have come across of leads me
to believe that there is any there there.
And as with the case of Europa, if evidence for suspecting that
there is in fact a there there were to emerge, I am perfectly open
to accepting its reality.
-- cary
See, you atheists are SO wishy-washy. Changing your minds just because
new information becomes available. You should be like the theists: latch
on to something that was believed thousands of years ago, and don't change
your mind no matter what!
I remember something that Colbert said at the White House correspondents
dinner: George Bush believes on Thursday the same thing that he believed
on Tuesday. Regardless of what happened on Wednesday!
And doesn't it speak volumes that there isn't ONE single question of doubt
against their baby theory that can be rightfully asked? It does to me.

Saba
Post by MarkA
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
MarkA
2007-06-19 01:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~saba gracile~
Post by MarkA
See, you atheists are SO wishy-washy. Changing your minds just because
new information becomes available. You should be like the theists: latch
on to something that was believed thousands of years ago, and don't change
your mind no matter what!
I remember something that Colbert said at the White House correspondents
dinner: George Bush believes on Thursday the same thing that he believed
on Tuesday. Regardless of what happened on Wednesday!
And doesn't it speak volumes that there isn't ONE single question of doubt
against their baby theory that can be rightfully asked? It does to me.
Saba
When I first read this, I assumed that the "baby theory" you were
referring to was the Creationist one! After reading some of your other
posts, now I am not so sure.

In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic when calling atheists
"wishy-washy". It is pretty obvious that if you are modifying your
theories as new information becomes available, that you are, in fact,
"asking questions." And looking for answers.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
Phil MacDouglass
2007-06-14 06:41:47 UTC
Permalink
When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: "As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
Thought evolving
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence,"
a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But
is it?
Yes. A demostrable fact.
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution
. . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also
being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists,
scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the
prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and
author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its
acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of
biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising
amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt
that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke
of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added,
“things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as
though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there
are individual biologists.
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.

and hitching's a braindead creationist k00k! iirc, he's not really an
evolutionist.
Kathy
2007-06-15 19:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil MacDouglass
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.
The lying troll from hell claims he's not a JW creationist then quotes
constantly from that book and other JW material. He never gives credits
either. He probably thinks he's fooling people into believing he wrote it
all.
k***@yahoo.com
2007-06-15 21:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kathy
Post by Phil MacDouglass
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.
The lying troll from hell claims he's not a JW creationist then quotes
constantly from that book and other JW material. He never gives credits
either. He probably thinks he's fooling people into believing he wrote it
all.
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation. What is
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago. We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients". I spok with
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.
ZilentNoise
2007-06-15 21:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Kathy,
Her real name is Carolyn Gulley
Post by k***@yahoo.com
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation. What is
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago.
Ohhhhhhhhhh boy, now she going to accuse you of posting watchtower material.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients". I spok with
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.
k***@yahoo.com
2007-06-15 22:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZilentNoise
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Kathy,
Her real name is Carolyn Gulley
Post by k***@yahoo.com
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation. What is
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago.
Ohhhhhhhhhh boy, now she going to accuse you of posting watchtower material.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients". I spok with
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks for the warning, but I am an agnostic, and could give a ----
less where we are from or where we are going if anywhere. So she
won't get much satisfaction there. I just want to know the truth
whatever that might be, good or bad. I have no axe to grind other
than I don't take insults well and return them in kind. Thanks for
the warning. K.W.
Ips-Switch
2007-06-16 01:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZilentNoise
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Kathy,
Her real name is Carolyn Gulley
Uh, no jabbers. Her real name is Norma I. Santana.
Lieken
2007-06-15 22:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Post by Kathy
Post by Phil MacDouglass
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.
The lying troll from hell claims he's not a JW creationist then quotes
constantly from that book and other JW material. He never gives credits
either. He probably thinks he's fooling people into believing he wrote it
all.
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation.
Carol never did, All she want you to do is to throw JW in mud. To do
this sje will post with various NYM's in the same thread. Such as

Ips-switch
Kathy
Apostate

When you ignore her she will rotate with other nyms from different
free servers. She is easy to spot. She attacks Jabriol, JW's and or
the watchtower in every post.
k***@yahoo.com
2007-06-15 22:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lieken
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Post by Kathy
Post by Phil MacDouglass
that's a deliberate misquote from the WTBTS "creation" book. it mentions
not that evolution is being debated, but the speed at which things might
evolve.
The lying troll from hell claims he's not a JW creationist then quotes
constantly from that book and other JW material. He never gives credits
either. He probably thinks he's fooling people into believing he wrote it
all.
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation.
Carol never did, All she want you to do is to throw JW in mud. To do
this sje will post with various NYM's in the same thread. Such as
Ips-switch
Kathy
Apostate
When you ignore her she will rotate with other nyms from different
free servers. She is easy to spot. She attacks Jabriol, JW's and or
the watchtower in every post.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Pardon my french, but what the hell is "The Watchtower"? It sounds
ominious. It's not like the religions that come to your door or
anything is it? That is what a S & M 460 Mag is for with a red dot
sight scope. Eight and a half inch ported barrel, 260 grain bullets,
2300 ft a second. Scares the hell out of them. Is that what you were
talking about? K.W. P.S. I live in Oklahoma, so you can imagine!
Kathy
2007-06-16 01:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Pardon my french, but what the hell is "The Watchtower"? It sounds
ominious.
The Watchtower Society followers are better known as Jehovah's Witnesses.
The person you're having a conversation with is better known as Jabriol, a
JW who uses many nyms to bypass people's killfiles.

It's not like the religions that come to your door or
Post by k***@yahoo.com
anything is it?
Yes, they usually show up on Saturday mornings, looking for converts.

That is what a S & M 460 Mag is for with a red dot
Post by k***@yahoo.com
sight scope. Eight and a half inch ported barrel, 260 grain bullets,
2300 ft a second. Scares the hell out of them. Is that what you were
talking about? K.W. P.S. I live in Oklahoma, so you can imagine!
DärFläken
2007-06-16 01:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lieken
When you ignore her she will rotate with other nyms from different
free servers. She is easy to spot. She attacks Jabriol, JW's and or
the watchtower in every post.
Uh, YOU are jabriol. Have another seazure Antonio? Forget who you are? Why
are you trying to trick him?

Carol aka Norma I. Santana attacks JW? Why not call the police and have her
arrested for assault and battery?
Kathy
2007-06-16 01:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation.
I was not referring to the conversation. I'm talking about where the troll
is cutting and pasting his messages from. He's plagiarizing the Watchtower
material. MORE below. :-)

What is
Post by k***@yahoo.com
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago. We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients".
Ancients? Are you saying that around 60,000 years ago about 10,000 humans
suddenly appeared here on earth? If that is the case then this planet was
seeded from somewhere else, some other planet. I see no reason to think a
magical "creation" suddenly occurred. And how is it we're so closely
related to the apes if we're from another planet and they're from HERE?

I spok with
Post by k***@yahoo.com
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.
Then who were they and where did they go? When did they find usable DNA
from people 120,000 years old to make that statement?
k***@yahoo.com
2007-06-16 21:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kathy
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Kathy,
You still are not getting the gist of the conversation.
I was not referring to the conversation. I'm talking about where the troll
is cutting and pasting his messages from. He's plagiarizing the Watchtower
material. MORE below. :-)
What is
Post by k***@yahoo.com
under dispute is not evolution per sae, it is human evolution that is
causing all the trouble. Note the May 8th report by Cambridge
University that acknowledges finally, after 10 tedious years of DNA
work that we are all descended, all living humans today, from
aproximiately 10,000 adults out of Northern African about 60,000 years
ago. We are no kin to any of the so called "ancients".
Ancients? Are you saying that around 60,000 years ago about 10,000 humans
suddenly appeared here on earth? If that is the case then this planet was
seeded from somewhere else, some other planet. I see no reason to think a
magical "creation" suddenly occurred. And how is it we're so closely
related to the apes if we're from another planet and they're from HERE?
I spok with
Post by k***@yahoo.com
the assistant to the director of the research team. Her words were,
"One of the reaseachers said, "We are back to square one. We don't
know who we are, or where we came from." That is what the fight is
centering around. Again, we simply don't know and there will be much
more research to be done. Remember the 120,000 years old "modern
humans"? They aren't us. We keep searching. K.W.
Then who were they and where did they go? When did they find usable DNA
from people 120,000 years old to make that statement?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, it seems to have been common knowledge as far back as 1997, what
had to be confirmed with that the Australian and New Guiniea DNA
matched. They had a problem as it differed from others until they
understood that both were landlocked and then seperated by rising sea
water about 8,000 years ago. Go to Cambridge Uninversity News, hit
archive, go to Australians go on African walkabout, it will give you
all the details. As for the usable DNA from people 120,000 years ago
to make that statement, they can't. Look at the bone structure, they
are much closer to Neanderthal than modern human. Their tools never
changed as well. We changed tools like we change clothing styles.
K.W.
ZilentNoise
2007-06-16 21:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution,
Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern
evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record
reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change.
Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to
prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the
molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.

Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its
mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts
among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying
principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of
ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all:
how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the
genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact,
Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so
inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”

However, many advocates of evolution feel that they do have
sufficient reason to insist that evolution is a fact. They explain that
they are just arguing over details. But if any other theory had such
enormous remaining difficulties, and such major contradictions among
those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact? Merely
repeating that something is a fact does not make it a fact. As John R.
Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists
succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the
question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were
finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the
tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of
science.”

On the other hand, what about creation as an explanation for how life
got here? Does it offer a framework for the evidence that is any more
sound than the assertions that often underpin evolution? And, as the
best-known creation account, does Genesis shed any credible light on how
the earth and living things got here?
Budikka666
2007-06-17 11:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZilentNoise
Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution,
Yet more unsupported assertion! LoL! Where is your positive
scientific evidence supporting your creation claims?

If your;e looking for proven facts, then the *fact* is that Francis
Hitching has no academic qualifications whatsoever to pontificate upon
the topic of Evolution. He's entitled to an opinion, but his opinion
is totally irrelevant since he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Instead of quoting ancient quotes and comments from people who know
nothing about the topic, why don't you present positive scientific
evidence supporting your case? *That's* the scientific method.
Post by ZilentNoise
But if any other theory had such
enormous remaining difficulties, and such major contradictions among
those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact?
The *Theory* has not been pronounced a fact. But evolution itself
*is* a fact. Learn to tell the difference. The Theory of Evolution
is the *only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of
evolution. The Theory of Evolution is one of the best, if not the
best, scientifically support theories there is. It has almost 150
years of solid science behind it, science that is not "opinion", but
is factual observation, experimentation, and expert testimony
published in refereed science journals the world over by people of all
faiths.
Post by ZilentNoise
Merely
repeating that something is a fact does not make it a fact.
Neither does repeating ancient quotes and comments from people who
know nothing about the topic. However, repeating it with scientific
evidence makes a far more solid fact than irrelevant, out-of-date, and/
or out-of-context commentary in news groups! LoL! Especially when
that commentary comes from someone like Francis Hitching, who believes
in the thoroughly discredited practice of dowsing!
Post by ZilentNoise
As John R.
Unother unsupported claim. Why are you too afraid to post an actual
reference to go with these purported quotes?
Post by ZilentNoise
On the other hand, what about creation as an explanation for how life
got here?
Show us the science. Until and unless you do, all you have is sour
grapes whining. The Theory of Evolution is backed by 150 years of
solid science. Where's YOURS?

Budikka
DärFläken
2007-06-18 00:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZilentNoise
On the other hand, what about creation as an explanation for how life
got here?
See what a habitual liar Jabber is? He claims he doesn't believe in a
magical creation and then he asks something like this. If he didn't believe
in a supernatural creation he wouldn't have C&Ped such a thing from the
Watchtower literature.

OTOH Budikka.... look at all the attention he gets by posting the old WTS
crap to all these NGs. The attention is what he craves and you can be sure
he gets credit on his WTS time card for posting it here.
ZilentNoise
2007-06-17 12:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Dr. D. B. Gower, biochemist from London University, also confirms
that ‘the story of the fossils agrees with the account of Genesis (in
the Bible).’ He says that ‘in the oldest rocks we do not find a series
of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive
creatures to developed forms, but, rather, in the oldest rocks,
developed species suddenly appeared.’ He also observed that between
every major type of plant and animal ‘there was a complete absence of
intermediate fossils.’
Jois
2007-06-19 00:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Dr. D. B. Gower, biochemist from London University, also confirms that
‘the story of the fossils agrees with the account of Genesis (in the
Bible).’ He says that ‘in the oldest rocks we do not find a series of
fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to
developed forms, but, rather, in the oldest rocks, developed species
suddenly appeared.’ He also observed that between every major type of
plant and animal ‘there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.’
Poor guy, not very observant is he?
Loading...