it not so much your argument that is compelling

it's the boldness of it

10/26/2005 2:46:50 PM

ironprisonplanetic

10/26/2005 2:47:13 PM

I've hit a nerve in criticizing your religion, haven't I? This bogus theory is a major part of your atheistic/secular world view. It's the excuse for you to deny the existence of a Creator (even though you probably know and believe the theory is completely ridiculous).

10/26/2005 2:49:53 PM

you really should read what I posted

10/26/2005 2:50:32 PM

You actually intended people to read that?

10/26/2005 2:51:02 PM

I thought that you were all about considering the evidence to make an informed decision.

So, whenever someone presents information that damages your argument, you call it "disinformation" instead of actually responding.

10/26/2005 2:52:31 PM

interprisonplanetesting

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 2:53 PM. Reason : *]

10/26/2005 2:53:24 PM

Quote :

"I thought that you were all about considering the evidence to make an informed decision. So, whenever someone presents information that damages your argument, you call it "disinformation" instead of actually responding."

Wait. So you read that stuff? Are you a speed reader? Amazing.

10/26/2005 2:53:32 PM

hey salisburyboy

look out your window

wave, i want the picture to look good

10/26/2005 2:54:05 PM

I read it.

The international zionistic conspiracy taught me how to speed read.

10/26/2005 2:54:43 PM

Quote :

"Wait. So you read that stuff? Are you a speed reader? Amazing."

Yes. I read it. Heaven forbid you RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENT.

10/26/2005 2:56:36 PM

I glossed over this the first time...

Quote :

"So, whenever someone presents information that damages your argument, you call it "disinformation" instead of actually responding"

ahahahaha

10/26/2005 2:56:47 PM

Quote :

"Heaven forbid you RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENT."

You gloss over a lot of things, little buddy.

10/26/2005 2:58:05 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: "Yes. I read it. Heaven forbid you RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENT"

Sure you did. I bet you read every single word.

WHAT A JOKE. He bombs the thread with 5 posts the length of essays, and you expect us to believe that you read all of it in approximately 15 minutes. Not only that, you expect me (and apparantly everyone else) to have taken the time to actually read something so lengthy that was posted in such a "bomb" fashion. And not only that, you expect that I should have formulated a response to that series of posts. Well, do you expect mine to be the length of 5 essays as well? You do realize it would take quite a while to write that down. Or do you?

WHAT KIND OF IDIOTS DO YOU THINK THE USERS HERE ARE THAT THEY WOULD BELIEVE YOUR CRAP?

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:04 PM. Reason : 1]

10/26/2005 3:02:57 PM

Quote :

"WHAT KIND OF IDIOTS DO YOU THINK THE USERS HERE ARE THAT THEY WOULD BELIEVE YOUR CRAP?"

OH THE IRONY. DEAR JESUS, I CAN'T TAKE IT. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THAT KIND OF IRONY.

HOLY SHIT.

10/26/2005 3:04:12 PM

Give it up, man.

Did you read all of the crap nastoute posted as well? Are you a super speed reader like mr. doofus here?

10/26/2005 3:05:52 PM

Quote :

"you expect us to believe that you read all of it in approximately 15 minutes."

Good thinking! Lets argue about my reading speed as soon as you start losing ground with your anti-evolution argument!

Then slander me!

Quote :

"Did you read all of the crap nastoute posted as well?"

Scientific American = Crap

Prisonplanet = ?

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2005 3:06:25 PM

i have previously read the article, yes.

10/26/2005 3:06:29 PM

Quote :

"Good thinking! Lets argue about my reading speed as soon as you start losing ground with your anti-evolution argument!"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

...


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

10/26/2005 3:09:54 PM

Quote :

"AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! ... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!"

oh man, I definitely did a lot of that when I read:

Quote :

"OH THE IRONY. DEAR JESUS, I CAN'T TAKE IT. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THAT KIND OF IRONY. HOLY SHIT."

so how about some evidence on your side of the board here

10/26/2005 3:12:46 PM

So are you actually going to defend your ideas or just keep dancing around the issue?

10/26/2005 3:13:09 PM

Give me something specific to respond to. As opposed to a mountain of crap posted in a "bomb" fashion.

10/26/2005 3:14:32 PM

Again...I keep missing these gems the first time around.

Quote :

"...or just keep dancing around the issue"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10/26/2005 3:15:23 PM

this isnt new in the least bit.

i remember fighting this battle all the time in HS, when I thought that the argument was worth it.

10/26/2005 3:16:02 PM

the fuck do you call that then?

it's like when people laugh at your shit without actually addressing it

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:16 PM. Reason : dude just pick one of those points and argue against it, I read a couple myself]

10/26/2005 3:16:17 PM

Quote :

"or just keep dancing around the issue"

As if I was the person that "bombed" this thread with crap in the attempt to distract the discussion.

What a joke.

LOL.

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:17 PM. Reason : 1]

10/26/2005 3:16:18 PM

lollers

10/26/2005 3:16:58 PM

Please point out some of the gaping holes in the "crap" from Scientific American.

10/26/2005 3:19:44 PM

READING AND THINKING?

WHAT THE FUCK?

DO YOU ACTUALLY EXPECT US TO READ AND THINK?

WHAT KIND OF IDIOTS DO YOU THINK THE USERS HERE ARE THAT THEY WOULD BELIEVE YOUR CRAP?

10/26/2005 3:22:43 PM

Here's that refutation you SO DESPERATELY want.

Read up fellas. I expect you to be done in 15 minutes and have posted a response.

Refuting Evolution
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE1/index.asp

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:33 PM. Reason : 1]

10/26/2005 3:29:03 PM

Oh, wait. Do you want the text?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter3.asp

Quote :

"The links are missing by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M. First published in Refuting Evolution Chapter 3 Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science discusses the fossil record in several places. Creationists and evolutionists, with their different assumptions, predict different things about the fossil record. If living things had really evolved from other kinds of creatures, then there would have been many intermediate or transitional forms, with halfway structures. However, if different kinds had been created separately, the fossil record should show creatures appearing abruptly and fully formed. The transitional fossils problem Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted: Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1 Is it any different today? The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2 The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.3 And: I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.4 As Sunderland points out: It of course would be no puzzle at all if he [Gould] had not decided before he examined the evidence that common-ancestry evolution was a fact, ‘like apples falling from a tree,’ and that we can only permit ourselves to discuss possible mechanisms to explain that assumed fact.5"

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:32 PM. Reason : 2]

10/26/2005 3:31:05 PM

George W. Bush created the universe y'all.

10/26/2005 3:31:42 PM

Quote :

" I expect you to be done in 15 minutes and have posted a response. "

you take tww way too seriously.

10/26/2005 3:31:49 PM

ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

IF I HAD OFFSPRING AND WE BOTH DIED, WOULD YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS BETWEEN US?

10/26/2005 3:35:07 PM

WOW.





What a pathetic straw man.

LOL

10/26/2005 3:36:46 PM

The "crap" from Scientific American posted on page one (which you refuse to read) actually covered that.

Quote :

"13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution."

10/26/2005 3:37:13 PM

hey salisbury, that picture of you turned out great. thanks for coming outside. here it is:

10/26/2005 3:37:38 PM

Wow. I can play your game too. Who would have thunk it?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter3.asp

Quote :

"Excuses Like most evolutionary propaganda, Teaching about Evolution makes assertions that there are many transitional forms, and gives a few ‘examples.’ A box on page 15 contains the gleeful article by the evolutionist (and atheist) E.O. Wilson, ‘Discovery of a Missing Link.’ He claimed to have studied ‘nearly exact intermediates between solitary wasps and the highly social modern ants.’ But another atheistic evolutionist, W.B. Provine, says that Wilson’s ‘assertions are explicitly denied by the text … . Wilson’s comments are misleading at best.’12 Teaching about Evolution emphasizes Archaeopteryx and an alleged land mammal-to-whale transition series, so they are covered in chapters 4 and 5 of this book. Teaching about Evolution also makes the following excuse on page 57: Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave many transitional fossils. Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils because of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could easily be fossilized. Darwin also excused the lack of transitional fossils by ‘the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.’ But as we have seen, even organisms that leave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates. Michael Denton points out that 97.7 percent of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1 percent of living families of land vertebrates—87.8 percent if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized.13 It’s true that fossilization requires specific conditions. Normally, when a fish dies, it floats to the top and rots and is eaten by scavengers. Even if some parts reach the bottom, the scavengers take care of them. Scuba divers don’t find the sea floor covered with dead animals being slowly fossilized. The same applies to land animals. Millions of buffaloes (bison) were killed in North America last century, but there are very few fossils. In nature, a well-preserved fossil generally requires rapid burial (so scavengers don’t obliterate the carcass), and cementing agents to harden the fossil quickly. Teaching about Evolution has some good photos of a fossil fish with well-preserved features (p. 3) and a jellyfish (p. 36). Such fossils certainly could not have formed gradually—how long do dead jellyfish normally retain their features? If you wanted to form such fossils, the best way might be to dump a load of concrete on top of the creature! Only catastrophic conditions can explain most fossils—for example, a global flood and its aftermath of widespread regional catastrophism. Teaching about Evolution goes on to assert after the previous quote: However, in many cases, such as between primitive fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds, there are excellent transitional fossils. But Teaching about Evolution provides no evidence for this! We can briefly examine some of the usual evolutionary claims below (for reptile-to-bird, see the next chapter on birds): Fish to amphibian: Some evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. This speculation seemed impossible to disprove, since according to evolutionary/long-age interpretations of the fossil record, the last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago. But a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938. And it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish-like, not transitional. It also has some unique features—it gives birth to live young after about a year’s gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals.14 The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega (mentioned on p. 39 of Teaching about Evolution), is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians. Amphibian to reptile: Seymouria is a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the ‘earliest’ true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors! Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry—see the section below on soft part changes. Reptile to mammal: The ‘mammal-like reptiles’ are commonly asserted to be transitional. But according to a specialist on these creatures: Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.15 Evolutionists believe that the earbones of mammals evolved from some jawbones of reptiles. But Patterson recognized that there was no clear-cut connection between the jawbones of ‘mammal-like reptiles’ and the earbones of mammals. In fact, evolutionists have argued about which bones relate to which.16"

10/26/2005 3:43:24 PM

i'm not playing a game

it's just an article from a reputable publication

we have a 10000 word limit per post

and there is no "link" to that article

10/26/2005 3:45:08 PM

The article/book I'm posting is serious as well.

10/26/2005 3:46:50 PM

really?

are you sure?

come on now, are you smirking when you say that? you are aren't you?

10/26/2005 3:47:19 PM

Uh, no. Look at the website. Are they not serious about refuting evolution? And do you think I'm not serious about my opposition to evolution?

10/26/2005 3:48:54 PM

i think you're a joke

10/26/2005 3:50:09 PM

By "game", I mean that I can post lengthy articles from the internet or other publications that support my position.

10/26/2005 3:50:17 PM

Quote :

"i think you're a joke"

And I couldn't care less what you think about me.

10/26/2005 3:50:54 PM

you obviously cared enough to hit that quote button

10/26/2005 3:52:10 PM

Yeah, but only to let you know how much I don't care.

Oh, and you must really think I'm a "joke" for you to take the time to post a long scientific american article in the attempt to refute my position, and then spend all this time arguing with me.

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:56 PM. Reason : 1]

10/26/2005 3:54:10 PM

If people believe that God created the world or at least helped it along, it's not my place to judge them. However, I personally think it's ridiculous that evolution isn't as widely embraced by the American public, and if somebody tries to tell me that creationism is correct they can forget about me taking them seriously.

That's not to say that I'm surprised by the poll results, however; this is still very much a religious nation.

10/26/2005 3:54:40 PM

^^

dude, you're spouting off all kinds of silly

i just wanted to present an article

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 3:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2005 3:55:35 PM

Here's your problem little buddy:

You post articles that present the same stale arguments against evolution. Nastoute posted an article that was written as a rebuttle to those stale arguments. You aren't proving anything or convincing anyone. You're going to have to actually defend your claims instead of relying on other people's writing along with cut and paste.

10/26/2005 3:57:21 PM