News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

And you like to misportray things. I copied and pasted your exact words. They're still there, naturally.

Now you effectively change it to "when all sides have reached a consensus" their results will match. Duh! It could not be otherwise. Do you predict such a day will ever come? Is such a prediction falsifiable?

By the way, is this your own prediction, or do you have a source? We know Darwin didn't predict anything about DNA, after all. How could he? He was totally ignorant about it.
You equate divided opinions among evolutionists with conspiracy? On my behalf, no less?
Your source admits it involves a new interpretation of fossils.They have new "finds" which they say "support" the new interpretation. Now which came first, the DNA tree discrepancies, or the new story?

My preliminary, superficial research results in a tie. 1994. Your source published about an "important" find in 1994, and wiki lists "Grauer, D. and D. Higgins. 1994. Molecular evidence for the inclusion of cetaceans within the order Artiodactyla. Molecular Biology and Evolution" as a source for their article.

That's really all the time I care to waste. Unless you desire to present a case that the fossils were reinterpreted independently, you should drop it.

What's so curious about that? If I had made the claim, it would be curious.

Perhaps it could be easily done? Perhaps that's what makes it curious? Ah well, I've done enough; I don't need to go chasing down every clue you drop in my lap. Even when your own sources support exactly what I say, it has no impact, let's not forget.
Then why is there no consensus? Are those evolutinists on the other side of the controversy just too stubborn to give up? What about the neutral, non-committal group? Are they just afraid, or (even worse) too blamed independent to be intimidated?

Good for him.... How do the others sort it out? Indohys fits in where, exactly?


I wouldn't bet against the paleontologist faction on that score. What about betting on the next DNA analysis? Is whippomorpha the future, or just a transient phenomenon?

I see wiki's not keeping cats in bags. You need to police it a little more closely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetartiodactyla
So they got pigs wrong too, I see. Anyone surprised? Anyone at all?

Matching trees is quite the issue. I came across this Supertree project. Looks like other evolutionists think it's important to take and compare independent trees when making evaluations. But what would they know? "Supertree" is clearly second-rate. Just compare it to "absolute dating". It's okay, as these things go, but nothing to brag about.

I'll suggest cutting to the chase, just so you can refuse. Do you have any objective standard relating to "transitionals" which would falsify any version of evolutionism?

http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/index.html

Has diagrams and simple explanations for all three competing whale evolution "hypotheses".

Now if only three weren't such a big number...

I don't know about you RAZD, but it's exasperating reading all this, let alone participating. You are wasting your time and your knowledge on someone who will simply deny everything, no matter how much sense it makes, and who is certain that scientists are idiots and conspirators (because that is what props up his version of reality). I've been very interested to read the information you've provided but it is utterly wasted here. CTD is never going to change his point of view and I don't expect there are many "lurkers" to enlighten. You've got a lot to offer -- I wonder if there's someplace else where it could be put to good use?

Thanks, LindaLou,

I don't think CTD consciously understands when he is (so frequently) wrong, that it is part and parcel of the denial of reality necessary to hold views that are contradicted by reality.

But I think you underestimate the lurkers, as there is no evidence that they are all fundamentalist inerrant biblical believers. There are people that have been misinformed by people and by schools, but that are willing to learn. Look at Jeanie. Look at debates with Bex. Some of the people are willing to consider these concepts and test them in their own perceptions.

Those that cannot change, like CTD, just become a foil, like the hypothetical (straw man) opponent used in philosophical discourse, and thus an opportunity to investigate and talk about reality.

Enjoy.

OK, RAZD. If you do honestly enjoy it. I'm not sure I would, even if I had the time. The point could not be more clear that CTD skirts around issues, doesn't understand what he's talking about, is uneducated about science and unwilling to be. He seems to think that mocking people and what they say suffices as a debate tactic. I think any reasonable person reading here would see that.

Being a teacher myself, I was just imagining you teaching this information about science to a more open-minded audience -- people who have never learned it and don't understand it but who would like to. It seems a shame that so many of your discourses here are going to sit in cyberspace, functioning mainly to be ridiculed by the ignorant. Well maybe if I'm reading them, others are too. I'm enjoying them at least

Thanks CTD for another opportunity to demonstrate the difference between your world and the world of science.

And the word "WILL" is still in those exact words. I bolded it last time so you could see it easier.

No, because evidence doesn't reach a consensus: it is what it is, and it remains what it is without compromise. Reality doesn't play any favorites for any beliefs or ideas.

You confuse people with evidence. People can come to a consensus on what the evidence shows. For instance the signers of the "clergy list" reached a consensus that:

Of course consensus, being opinion, does not mean truth, just agreement.

No, what I am saying is that when all the evidence is in (or enough to piece together the true picture) for whale evolution that the phylogenies from DNA studies and the phylogenies from fossil homology and morphological studies will match, whether there is consensus among scientists or not.

Again you mistake authority (people) for evidence and logic. It is more important to you WHO made this prediction than whether the prediction is logically derived from the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution predicts that species are related by common ancestors.

This prediction is tested against the fossil evidence, where homologies and morphological changes in traits can be traced from fossil to fossil to see which traits are shared and which are not.

This prediction is also tested against the genetic evidence, where markers on genes show when species diverged from each other by which markers are shared and which are not.

Each of these tests result in cladograms, diagrams of relationships by common ancestry. They show what common ancestry should have been to get these results.

Because the theory of evolution predicts common ancestry, it predicts that both of these systems will result in identical phylogenies, the phylogeny that represent the real ancestry of life on earth.

Failure to match phylogenies would seriously question, if not invalidate, the concept of the common ancestor.

And yet, curiously, the fossils themselves did not change. Instead what happened was that more fossils were found that showed homologous and morpholoigical similarities intermediate between the known whale fossils and these "reinterpreted" fossils.

Strangely this "reinterpretation" does not change the walking behavior of the fossil either. What you are seeing is the process of science, with invalidated concepts discarded and new concepts formed that are based on reevaluation of all the evidence.

Curiously the "finds" are not imaginary, they are new objective evidence of reality, and this evidence invalidated the old view of relation to mesonychids. Strangely DNA cannot force fossils to grow in rock or to morph fossils into different forms. Sadly this seems to be what you are claiming happened.

Of course if the DNA had matched the fossil tree first, you would have claimed that the geneticists had fudged their data instead, because you have convinced yourself of a conspiracy that does not exist. The fact that there are differences in the evidence, and that new evidence is what causes revision to the phylogeny shows that scientists are interested in the evidence and what it shows to be true, rather than in some conspiracy or cover up.

Just that IF you were interested in invalidating evolution THEN this is what you would do. Note that I have restored the full quote rather than just leave your quote-mine snippet and put in bold the relevant portion you seemed to have missed the first time.

And this shows you the problems with assuming a conspiracy: if there were a conspiracy as you complain then none of this would be apparent.

I have to go do something else for a while, but before I leave, from your next message:

I'll make a prediction before reading your source:

That they all say whales evolved from condylarthra because of shared traits and that they all share traits with modern even-toed hoofed animals, like hippos, and that the differences will be minor compared to:

(1) complete failure to find homologous\morphological ancestor or modern cousin
(2) complete failure to find any shared DNA markers with any modern animal

Failure that would be a problem for common descent rather than just a matter of finding more information.

Enjoy.

You can find a good explanation of the (minor) issue on the same site, here. It's good science in action.

CTD is probably unaware that Dr. Hans Thewissen, whose site this is, was the discoverer of ambulocetus. He is an expert on the phylogeny of whales and also, curiously, on the origin and evolution of bats. Want to guess how much of his site CTD read before he made the above comments?

Hi CTD

The picture is an artistic reconstruction of what the fossil may look like with muscle and skin.
= Imagination.
Is it ‘imagination’ to measure the muscle and ligament coneecting points and so to work out how big they were. From that to wrap the skeleton in muscles of the right dimentions and with bones articulated in the correct way based on the location of those connections?

Yes it’s imagination that gave it a colour but little else is. On the rare occasions when skin fossilizes it’s colour does not so that is artistic licence but dimensions, stance, form etc are quite tightly constrained by the evidence. To suggest that the picture ‘=imagination’ is a sign of ignorance, nothing more unless you are aware of how such reconstructions are accomplished!

Some of their bones are longer, some shorter, a few have disappeared...
Disappeared? You have evidence? I know you have the capacity to tell a story, but I said 'evidence'.
Evidence? Sure! Take birds as an example, they have fewer bones in their arms/wings than we do but the bone structures are otherwise virtually identical except for the dimensions. Same bones connect to the same bones in the same order. Of the bones that have ‘disappeared’ a couple are literally missing completely while some others appear to have merged. Now for the really cool part, all of that was worked out by anatomists long ago but they had no proof but like most things in science this hypotheses can be tested and it has been. After they worked what had apparently happened they also realize that you can watch it happening under a microscope. In the early embryo’s of birds they have the full set of bones that humans have for their arms but during their development some do indeed join together to form a smaller number of longer bones and a couple simply fade away so that, while the embryo has them the adult bird does not.

The same is true to a large extent in bats and horses and dogs and cats and many other organisms. Recapitulation is indeed false but our embryos do go through some very very tellingly similar stages in their development. Why would a creator god produce creatures which form bones that simply disappear? Why create embryo’s with virtually identical sets of bones when the adults have different configurations of bones?

...but the basic structure is the same. Do you understand the concept of Homology and how it is detected in organisms?
Perfectly I understand this. When things are similar, and they suit the evostory, they're called "homologous". When they don't suit the story, they're called "convergent evolution". When this happens I call it intellectual dishonesty.

I guess I’ll leave it to others to judge how ‘perfectly’ you understand this. Homology is detected physically by a rigorous method which involves measuring many traits of a given structure and it’s relationships to the structures around it.
Convergent evolution is detected by the same sorts of methods applied to the history of the organism. If it possesses wings but no feathers and produces live young and not egg’s is probably not of the same group so it’s wings are clearly an example of convergent evolution or are you suggesting falsely, as the bible does in fact, that bat’s and birds are of the same group?

Of course all of that was initially worked out by structural analysis but it has since been confirmed by DNA evidence. Bat’s and birds structurally appear to be of different groups yet both fly, DNA evidence confirms that they are indeed only distantly related and their wings are examples of convergent evolution.

There are many other really obvious examples, the eyes of invertebrates are built completely different to human eye’s, better in fact in some ways, they share many design features but they different to dramatically in others that it’s clear they did not evolve from each other. Again this is an example of convergent evolution.

In reason

Russell

Hi CTD

We have 3 instances of mistakes in the book. There has apparently been no chance to correct the mistakes, so we don't know if they'll be fixed or not. If there is a refusal to correct these mistakes, you may point this out and I'll pay attention. Until then, this is just absurd. Very, very, few books are published without any errors at all.

Three mistakes? I’m not actually aware of anything that it got right and I read through it, well looked through it, there’s not that much to read. I’ve found many more obvious errors than just three but there’s more to it than that. It’s primary thesis is false, that demonstrating lack of change for some species undermines ToE and the evidence it presents does not support that claim anyway. Sure some of the pictures he’s found look superficially similar but are they actually identical or even very similar? Where’s the analysis needed to work that out. I’m not sure the author is even aware of what’s required and I very much doubt he’s capable of doing that sort of work. He has no qualifications in this area that I’ve been able to find. A couple of visually similar pictures doesn’t tell us much even a whole book full of them. Coupled with the really obvious errors we have to be suspicious of his thesis.

In Reason

Russell

Okay, back now, CTD, shall we see how that prediction panned out?

Except that it really is two, because included in the review is the invalidated mesonychid hypothesis, and it is identified as such:

So this is in agreement with Gingerich and the DNA information.

What we are left with is a "choice" between the Artiodactyl Hypothesis:



and the Hippopotamid Hypothesis:



Where Cetacea are "Celia," Hippos are "Heidi," other artiodactyls are "Arlene," and mesonychians are "Megan" ...

What was that prediction?
Looks like it panned out, in spades. The disagreement is even smaller than predicted.

In effect we have moved a step closer to the truth, from "great-grandmother" to "grandmother" and the discussion is down to who the "mother" is.

Note also that the only evidence we have for a genetic phylogeny is reference in two articles about the fossil phylogeny, not any primary reference that lays out exactly when who is related to what common ancestor. All we have is "DNA says whales are more related to Hippopotamids" and not the rest of the phylogeny.

From your link:

Gosh, it looks like they have the same issue: are Heidi and Arlene sisters or are Heidi and Celia sisters?

So much for DNA being in total disagreement with the fossil phylogeny.

Well the article says:

So that would seem to say it doesn't affect either argument.

Which is just where I was going to go next, seeing as all you have done is muddle through various transitional fossils and not dealt with the issue of what is and is not a transitional.

Simply put CTD, what you need is something that is NOT transitional.

Good luck, seeing as the known ancestors of bats and whales are clearly transitional between older known mammals and more modern ones.

Enjoy.

Yet another transitional is found and a very telling one IMHO.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6758

"Will match" doesn't mean "won't match". Neither does it mean "will be reinterpreted to match".

So your prediction is just a phony one thrown in to mock actual science? The data already exists, and it didn't match. Reinterpreting doesn't change that. And in the case of whales, the reinterpreting solution hasn't been accepted yet, either.

Your prediction (when we incorporate your new, non-obvious choice of meaning for the term 'will') relies upon people. Thus is a joke to try to pass it off.

You weren't even thinking about whales when you wrote that. You first tried to trick everyone into thinking the whale stories did match, when they didn't. Now you backpedal on your original prediction. Why? Because it fails in its original form.

It doesn't matter which compromise they agree to. If the data doesn't match the story, it doesn't match. If it matched any compromise, the deal'd be done. (Or do you imagine the "conspiracy" is too dishonest to support this conclusion?)

So the stasis, which logically does not fit many "theories of evolution", shouldn't be there. Most "theories" of change do predict change, whether or not people choose to admit this.

Which ones? Okay, I could clarify, I suppose. And I know how folks hate it when that happens.

Which "theories" predict which "species" share common ancestors?

Duh! That's your whole problem. At least, if you mean for anyone to take your "prediction" even half seriously. But why should we take it any more seriously than you do yourself?

That bears no resemblance to anything I've said. Please destroy this straw man before he joins the legion.

Well, I suppose this fictional CTD might be an interesting character. Why don't you start a new thread & tell us all about him?

If that's what you think, then why do you keep bring up this "conspiracy"?

Nonsense. Like I need advice from you on debunking...

Oh? Do you mean to say that removing unnecessary context is the same thing as quoting out-of-context? I didn't make the claim, so there's nothing curious at all about me not supporting it. That you assert this need means... it means you assert it.

Now if only Darwin (or even later evopushers) had only known... all they need to do to prove their fantasy once & for all is show that whales' DNA has any feature at all common with any other critters' DNA, my my! Why don't you be of value to the movement & notify Dawkins right away?

That's a response, but not an answer. I do not recall complaining of any whale conspiracy, but what kind of authority am I on my own words? I don't even know what they are sometimes, before they're put in my mouth.

That's enough. The whole issue was that they're supposed to be related to hippos somehow! Of course you could predict that. We discussed this before, and everyone knows.

(And that's assuming you were honest and didn't look.)

Do you ever pass up any opportunity to insult peoples' intelligence?

Which would be... anything.

No. What's "needed" is something no evolutionist could say could not be "transitional". And I don't think there's any such thing.
See what I mean? No ancestor for bats, and the key "whale ancestor" is a skull with an imaginary body. Those who believe choose to believe, and even then they surely must struggle.

It's a subjective matter for them. It's a religion.

It's extrapolation, and it's based on assumptions and guesswork. That's imagination.

And most reconstructions, the vast majority in fact, are made from far less than a full skeleton.

On the rare occasions when skin, or any other soft tissue is discovered, they get excited because they learn new things the bone(s) didn't tell them.

Reconstruction arts seem to have improved. But to pretend they're perfect, or that the bone(s) contain(s) all the information about an animal... I guess you'd have me become ignorant. 100 years ago, everyone was assured all the drawings were done by experts, and perfect, and all that junk. Is even one of them still considered accurate?
I couldn't verify any of this. I read where a lot of mistakes have been made about identifying bone in developing chicks. This is because bones don't start off as bones, but as tissue that resembles other kinds of tissue. Calcium arrives later and hardens them up.

Found a few interesting links.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971027064254.htm
Explains how the dino-to-bird story isn't supported by modern-day recap.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.asp
More of the same, plus frogs & humans recap doesn't match.

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/skmus9.htm
Talks a little about the bone stuff. I lost my better link & really ain't inclined to dig it back up. Just not worth the trouble when nobody cares anyhow.

http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/human_embryo_gillslits.htm
Good recap discussion. Better at the end than the beginning. May have to post this in the appropriate thread.

http://www.upc-online.org/winter2002/cloning.html
Some sick, disgusting stuff they're doing these days. Kinda bumsville researching anything to do with 'embryos' out there. A lot of crap one doesn't want to know about is going on as "research". This one's just about disfiguring chickens, but there's much more, and it's pretty ugly.

Why would a man think he knows better how to make life than the One who already has? And how much do I care about claims from a dubious source which I cannot verify?

Ha! The term 'homology' was invented by an evolutionist, and it's never been rigourously applied at all. Look at how much they used to think was one way turned out to be altogether different. 'Homology' has always been about superficial appearance. Now that DNA's being investigated, they're finding that entirely different code is involved in many things they'd have us believe are 'homologous'.

If it doesn't fit the story, they call it "convergent evolution". Things don't get much simpler than that.

It's another ruse to escape falsification - nothing more. Most evostories claim similarity indicates ancestral relationships. When it doesn't pan out, rather than admitting they were wrong, they label it "convergent evolution". There's nothing more to it than that. Pure antiscience, and no way to hide it.

And, not too surprisingly, CTD, all we have is bluster and denial, and not any discussion of why a single one of the fossils in this thread is not an intermediate form between older fossils and later fossils.

Curiously it doesn't NOT match, because both sets of data are incomplete, both phylogenies are works in progress. What we do see is that as more information becomes available they get closer to giving the same results.

Thus we see convergence between two different sets of data as the data becomes more complete.

Again, you are ignoring the evidence already provided:

(1) http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/batfacts.htm
(2) Insectivore-like mammals, Tiny teeth and their enigmatic owners[/i]
Note that last bit about the genetic phylogeny matching the evidence from morphology\homology.

To say that there are [i]no ancestors to bats means you must ignore and deny this evidence of shared characteristics and the development of mammals as a precursor to the development of bats.

Of course, to find the true ancestor of bats you need to find a mammal without the wings, but with other shared characteristics with bats ... and to deny ancestry means you need to show that the shared characteristics of bats with Nyctitheriidae are due to convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution, however, says that the teeth of the organisms would be similarly evolved to eat insects (analogous), but not the same kinds of teeth in the same places (homologous). We can talk about the differences between wolf and thylacene (tasmanian "wolf") teeth to point out this difference if necessary.

(3) http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
(bold in original)

Again we have the pre-existing extinct group of artiodactyls with shared characteristics with pakicetus and later whales.

Of course, to find the true ancestor of whales you need to find a mammal living on land, but with other shared characteristics with whales ... and to deny ancestry means you need to show that the shared characteristics of Pakicetus and Rodhocetus with Anthracotheriidae are due to convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution, however, says that the ears of the organisms would be similarly evolved to hear under water (analogous), but not the same kinds of ear structure in the same places (homologous).

Curiously it is the homology of the ankle bone that places Anthracotheriidae in the ancestral chair of whales, just as it is the homology of the teeth that places Nyctitheriidae in the ancestral chair of bats.

Of course you would have to understand the difference between analogous and homologous traits and how they are used to define convergent evolution.

And this just shows that CTD has not learned the difference between analogous structures and homologous structures.

Enjoy.

You can all day long, RAZD. That IS the difference. Things that fit the evostory are called "homologous". Things that don't fit are excused. They may be called any of several things: homoplasy, parallel evolution, analogous, convergent evolution, or next week's evotrendy term.

To put me down for clarifying things just shows how much you hate it when evospeak gets interpreted. Well, boo hoo

It ain't hard to tell shinola from that which you peddle, RAZD. Anyone with a functional nose cannot fail to make the distinction.

Nothing you've provided is the least bit objective. Nor is it remotely in keeping with the simplest scientific protocols.

It's not even in keeping with evolutionist tradition. They used to claim the missing links would turn up. But RAZD isn't alone in abandoning such foolishness. That which never existed outside of imagination can only "turn up" if it's manufactured.

That's not evidence. That's an evostory. There is no evidence whatsoever that any nonbat creature was the ancestor of any bat. None.

I can't stop folks from imagining all sorts of things. But I can sure call imaginary things imaginary.

What "most authorities agree" is what RAZD insists I must consider evidence. Note the term 'probably'. Note the tentative nature of the phrasing. Note that these "authorities" are all going to be evolutionists, or their opinion wouldn't even count.

But dispute RAZD's story & what do you get?
There we have what? Speculation. Tentative speculation at that!

RAZD doesn't stop there. He spams more speculations. But so what? He's just a little further along in his evosickness. Previously he presented conclusions as evidence; now he sinks to presenting even non-committal speculations.

So we not only have a case of sham falsifications mocking science; we now get mockery at the other end. RAZD mocks the very concept of evidence.

Claim another 10,000. See who cares. We've seen your yardsticks, your gauges, your math, and your dictionary. (And we've certainly seen your spam.)

We've seen your religion, and we've seen the willpower you substitute for faith (for nobody ever had such faith as to believe a great multitude of things they know certainly to be false).

Your take on science is questionable. The very reason why people do science is because we don't know everything, yet you seem to think it's funny for some reason when scientists don't declare they are 100% sure about something. And in your eyes an educated guess seems funny too.

Provide some evidence, CTD. All you have done in the previous post is say "this is baloney." Put your money where your mouth is and stop the boring childish tirades.

lol. The emoticon cracked me up. The intellectual spins and cartwheels from these guys is ongoing. Your addition of the exposure (though they expose themselves) in case others are blinded or a bit dazzled by the intellectual and eloquent smoke screens drives it home and says it in a way that perhaps some were unable to word it as well.

For the most part I find it all a waste of time and energy in the end, as you know full well you wind up going in circles with them and no matter what you put up, they'll weasel their way around it with all KINDS of explanations/descriptions and scientific sounding words and then repeat it ad nausem.

Evolution really does have a life of its own. All it needs are devoted spin doctors and it's pretty much set for life. Evolution doesn't have to worry about becoming "old hat" or "caught with its pants down" because like Madonna, it just keep re-inventing itself

Good luck arguing with them CTD. You may as well bang your head against a wall! But hey, who knows who else is reading!

Strange. I would have said exactly the same things about CTD's waffle. I'm also not sure why there seems to be a feeling of pride in scientific ignorance here -- it's all too highbrow somehow, so they must be using fancy talk in order to fool you, right? Why not have a look at the links, ask them to clarify where necessary, and try learning a little science?

Nice emoticons, Bex. A devastating indictment of the position of the evolutionists.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/coralgenemar1604.php
Of course they will, eventually, someday, maybe... all agree on one tree.

And if they don't, the idea is that you'll never know. Even if you live 20 million years, how do you prove to the faithful that nobody is ever going to consolidate the trees? Don'cha just love such "predictions"?Can't really envy anyone tasked with making DNA evidence fit evolutionist preconceptions...

There are more links at the bottom. I was tempted to quote a bit more, but that'd just be rubbin' it in. From what I see, the old tree was really, really wrong. But I don't see much from the other side, so who knows... Even if they surrendered, what's that say for the "science of homology"?

Not as devastating as the evolution manipulated charts and other depicted scenarios/interpretations . I'd say what we're seeing here has been doing more harm to your cause than much else. CTD and Russ are just very good at pulling away the bluff and bluster and exposing it.

Emoticons are pretty harmless in comparison.

They're very good at making statements with no evidence to back them up. Laughing at someone's position and saying "that's silly" or "that's totally absurd" unfortunately doesn't prove anything. They still can't explain why radiometric dating (done in a variety of ways, by many different labs which compare results) tells us that the earth is over 4 billion years old, or why God would have sorted the fossil record in the geological column in order to presumably deceive us into thinking evolution happens and the earth is old (or maybe they think it was Satan, who knows). Saying "it's all nonsense" and using silly emoticons doesn't touch any of this.

Hey LindaLou,

Well they fill the voids, and the amusement can distract one from a lack of content. If that is the intent, then mission complished. If the intent is just to lighten up they can be fun.

Especially when that is the total content. One would do better to demonstrate the silly/absurdity and let people come to their own conclusions. CTD and RussT would prefer to tell you how to think rather tnan let you think.

Meanwhile we still see no counter argument to the transitional fossils and life forms presented on this thread ... just mockery and incredulity and evidence of misunderstanding.

On this thread CTD has shown he doesn't understand the difference between homology and analogy, but like the mathematics of decay curves (or evolution), his lack of knowledge doesn't keep him from making absurd claims about what scientists will do. Of course he adheres to the all-science-is-fraud=a-conspiracy theory, so making up stuff for scientists to do according to that theory is just expected behavior.

Well that is part of the conspiracy theory.

CTD also likes to pretend things like that pictures are the evidence of new fossils, rather than that the fossils actually exist and actually show the traits depicted in the pictures.

Now here's a good article that describes an early transition in forms from fish to amphibian, and it talks about the intermediate traits of the fossils involved (edited for brevity - those interested in the whole argument can follow the link):

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/fishibian.html

As demonstrated Tiktaalik has features shared with ancestral fish and features shared with devonian amphibian and modern amphibians (and reptiles and mammals). For CTD's edification I note that the homologies are color coded.

Now we can place the "Frog=amander" later in the development from sea to land:

Now a search on the Nature article finds:

A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders

And a little searching found the image of the fossil that was in the full article:



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521131541.htm

And we see the fossil phylogeny converging on the DNA phylogeny again.

Again we see traits shared with ancestors and traits shared with descendants: intermediate form, forms of intermediate varieties, just as predicted by Darwin.

Intermediate fossil keep filling in the gaps in the fossil record and provide finer detail with every step. DNA analysis keeps providing insights to shared common ancestors, providing finer detail with every step. Increasingly the evidence from both fields converges on more accurate overall knowledge of what actually occurred in the past.

Enjoy.

This is good basic information, RAZD. Thanks.

Part of the idea is also to characterise us as fanatics who have some sort of religious need to propagate our beliefs. I think this is often a case of the pot calling the kettle black. However, as the vast majority of people understand, all we do is look at objective evidence and follow where it leads. You can tell them that you're about as religious regarding evolution as you are regarding gravity but to them it's all lies. I guess I'm here because I'm trying to understand this mindset but what I find is that if you're determined to deny reality in order to hold on to a cherished belief, ain't no one gonna tell you otherwise until you are prepared to listen.

My sister-in-law the geologist was visiting today. I believe you said your father is a biologist? It seems that evolutionists here know about science themselves to various degrees and also have friends/relatives/acquaintances who do science. We know darn well that these people aren't part of some evil conspiracy. I guess it's easier to continue to deny reality if you don't know any of the people you are accusing of evilly hiding the "truth" from everyone.

However, I don't foresee any end or closure to the discussions here. CTD will laugh at everybody and fail to provide evidence for his own position as long as he has the time and the desire to do so and he seems to have both in spades. If you think you're going to get anywhere with that then feel free. Personally I find it wearing to watch people going round in circles here. Witness Russ T's posts for example, continuing to repeat the same fallacies as if he hasn't read any of the posts pointing out the errors (which perhaps he hasn't).

I'm all for comfort blankets, even when it involves lying to oneself. If it gets you through the day...

That being said, what very demonstrably accompanies this kind of belief (as evidenced by numerous posters here) is venom and hate. That part I'm not so cool with.



Of course he hasn't read them. He made an entire new thread dedicated to asking LinearAq if he's a Christian or not. That to me is pretty indicative of not having ever read any of the guy's posts - because it's come up on numerous occasions. There are the small details we all miss from time to time and then there are the details which make it painfully obvious that you're merely glossing over other people's posts and not bothering to actually read them. Look what I had to go through just to get an answer to how he thinks tanned skin is hereditary - I asked numerous times in numerous posts and then finally made an entire thread asking it. For that matter I believe Russell's and/or Mordred's question about his bogus "Darwin" quotation has also been unresponded to, despite that it's been brought up quite a few times.

Hi Linda, actually my new son-in-law is majoring in biology (planning to become a pediatrician) and is quite LDS. We had a very interesting conversation over the phone the other day about some issues.... I look forward to him visiting this Christmas.

I answer affirmative to all Russ's questions but he still doesn't "judge" me to be Christian. I think he's a little big for his britches. Sometimes I wonder if he isn't thinking he is starting his own church. He does have some followers.

Wow. I've been banned for less than this without even a warning. I got one chance to insult an owner of a forum and that is all I got. I may not agree with absolutely everything Russ posts but much of it I do. I may have gotten personally offended with some of what he has posted in regards to my faith, but I am also fully aware of how much good he is doing on these forums and how much information he provides the members here. Everybody of course is obligated to further investigate, in case there are some unfair or incorrect statements made, but haven't we all? But to sit and pull bits of him in a little group? Geesh. Why stay?

In regards to Pwcca's stataments about Linear and Russ asking for verifications about his Christianity? This is my opinion.

Please excuse the longwinded length of this. But I don't know how else to state all this briefly. Also, I do not want to be accused of not backing up these statements with at least some form of evidence. I don't think I'm the only one that is finally fed up with games being played on this forum.

Someone's sincerity in their Christianity is something only God can know for sure. But, unfortunately, playing the Christian card is nothing new on the internet forums in regards to evolution. No offense Linear, I'm not saying YOU are doing this, nor all others. But sadly it does happen and it's common. If you read contradictions in the posts that don't add up to what they tell you, then alarms bells can ring. Also, if someone is claiming to be something they are not on forums, it can apparently be worthy of banning. And if enough people complain to the owner of reservations/confusion, the owner maybe obligated to investigate further.

According to an experienced owner/moderator I've spoken to who has a history of running creation/evolution forums, many evolutionists play the "Christian card" and use it well to try and soften up others to the evolution faith. It not only enables them to get onto Christian forums, but it makes evolution seemingly more "friendly" and "bridgeable". It's an old ploy and not an honest one. How to tell their insincerity? - They will never defend their apparent faith if any evolutionist speaks poorly or contemptuously about it, whether it's the bible, Christ, or other Christians. Instead, they will find any means possible to find offense in a Christian creationist's post, even if it means having to exaggerate or see something there that wasn't stated.

They will be seen to side with the evolutionists against Christian creationists, no matter what OR they will remain silent and fail to defend the faith . Their evolutionary pals will also not mind speaking poorly about Christians/Christianity or falsey/sarcastically to their "Christian Evolutionist" buddy. Another indicator that they're all in on the joke This also should alert people. If they really did believe it, I'm doubtful they would risk offending their Christian evolutionist pal so readily. So that's another one to watch for - the interaction between them.

Even Linda wasn't convinced with Linear's strong Christian statements and took them as tongue in cheek.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=32783&page=1
#32790. (third post from the bottom). Did Linear defend his position to Linda and state that he was not in fact being sarcastic or had his tongue in his cheek? Not that I am aware of. Hence another inside joke?

Then we get Pwcca also joining in and enjoying a sarcastic dig in the same thread. Bottom post.

Then these people on the next hand will hold up Linear's apparent sincere Christian status to the rest of us in great serious intensity! How is it they don't even take his stance that seriously and even joke with him about it? Evidentally, they know something we don't?

The evolutionists tend to use their evolutionary Christian pal's Christianity against a Creationists when it suits also. E.g. - "so and so is a Christian, so you can't say all evolutionists are atheists" etc etc. "He/she's a Christian, so what have you got to say about that?". Lots of manipulative emotional ploys , when it suits them. The bible will also be used by the "Christian" evolutionist "when it suits" in an attempt to judge other creationists and hopefully make them feel bad, look bad, and therefore evolutionists appear to be the good guys...yet...why do they not do this when it comes to the evolutionists? Surely defending and holding up God's word if one is a true Christian is not a matter of favouritism?

The person's history in posting and what they really reveal will also speak louder than any claims too. The material will likely smack of practical atheism - e.g. (finding ways to disprove the bible, yet claiming they believe in it at the sametime). Becoming heated/angry anytime a person makes an effort to defend the bible's authenticity and giving presentations that back it up and not really wanting to know, or poo pooing it at the drop of a hat. Yet next minute, claiming they're a Christian

So throwing in some biblical quotes/verse and "I am a Christian" statements tend not to be taken seriously in light of their ongoing other issues. And cause ongoing confusion.

By their fruits you shall know them we were told. Linear would only need to say "look at my posting history" and not require to continually claim he's Christian to make up for what the posts themselves may be contradicting. They should say enough about his beliefs....yet here I find a contradiction and I think this is why perhaps others are confused:
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=33521&page=5

(Check second post onwards and you will find the opposite of claiming to be Christian. Instead, he aligns himself in defense with fellow non Christians and refers to Christians as "them" rather than "us".

Linear complains about "them" and their "moral codes" and their God being THE God. And why this should be so? Yet it was Christ that pointed this out, not us. But how does this add up to linear's other claims of being Christian? Christ lay this down, NOT us. He also lay His life down to prove to us that He has power over life and death. To a true Christian - Christ IS the one true God. We are required by faith to believe this and to follow Him. He said "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life". Not "A way, A truth and A life". Anybody stating otherwise is speaking in heresy and therefore not a true Christian and not sincere in their beliefs of Christ being THE way. Either you take Christ onboard as the Son of the living God, the Messiah, the one way to God the Father, the one who holds the keys to Heaven and Hell, or you do not. The biblical word is not privvy to everybody's whims and fancies. You're free to walk away. But many stay and distort or whine about it instead and hence put their own swing on it.

They attack or become angered at the messengers, because we simply repeat what Christ Himself told us. Even becoming annoyed with quote and verse. Jeanie, I don't believe Russ is trying to start his own church and I am very certain he would be very offended by you stating this. I know of nobody that follows Russ himself, but I know a few that do indeed try to follow Christ and do appreciate much of the work he's doing for the Kingdom of God. Does not mean we have to agree with everything and if there is something posted that we feel is unfair, incorrect/dubious from a source he may have given, then we are obligated to let him know. Whether Russ removes it or not? It is, in the end, his call. I cannot do much to force anybody to add or remove something on their own forum. If I feel that strongly, I may make a genuine complaint and/or leave.

I have had my moments with Russ, but I HOPE that I have not gotten on HIS forum, joined up with others and personally insulted him. Defending oneself, ones faith and correcting a person is not the problem. Pulling down their character and deliberately making them out to be something they are not, is.

The guy actually has reason to ban (or at least strongly warn) anybody that insults his character and takes advantage of their comfortable position on his forum to take pot shots with one another about him and then enjoy the luxury of reading and posting whenever they wish. I wonder at times how/why he tolerates as much of it as he does.....

Bex, I was in on that conversation but was not aware that that comment was tied to that question to Russ. (Actually I admit I did not look much past the question and it seemed to just come up - but perhaps the comment started a new page) due to lack of time and don't know what it came from. But I do believe Linear is sincere even if he is struggling in some respects. I don't think Russ has any authority or superiority to judge, though. Sure, you can discern truth.....but for him to tell me I'm not Christian as he has just because I believe in a literal Godhead (3 distinct beings) or because he doesn't believe some aspects of my faith or because it doesn't "add up" numerology wise (which, to me, is ludicrous to base whether something is of God on???????) is judging.....But thinking about it, maybe I'm wrong. Not sure, now, if he has insinuated I'm actually not Christian. Still, we have Abishag trying to correct me along with SoSick doing it so lovingly as well. So if nothing else, I've been told I'm wrong pretty blatantly. And even if I do believe churches in general only have a portion of the truth and that the original Church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth along with the actual authority of the priesthood....I do not go around telling everyone they are wrong. I do not believe it is my place. I may disagree on some points, but Russ has been pretty bold in many many statements to many people stating "with all due respect" when his comments make it pretty clear he has NO respect. He believes he is preaching the truth or calling folks to repentance. I agree with some of what he says and, actually, agree more than not...but still believe he oversteps his bounds.

I'm not insulting Russ any more than he has insulted me and am not meaning to insult him (anymore than he has meant to insult me, either). He is pretty blatant about putting the truth out as he sees it. I have a different view than him in some things. I, too, appreciate a lot of the information I've gotten on here, but it has also been a rather negative eye opener as well. Not on truth, either. Just because he runs or owns this forum doesn't mean he is the authority on such matters does it? He is talking about the Church of Jesus Christ. Is he a prophet?? I don't believe so. I don't believe God has given him any authority or calling to speak these things. Some of it may be true...but some of what he states on the other hand is not. Are we supposed to agree to belong?

Russ, if I have insulted you I apologize. You have personally had me in tears before, so I suppose I've hardened myself to deal with being on here. I don't know how to get off if I want to. But just about the point I feel there is no reason to be on any longer or that it is more negative than positive, there is something on there which is helpful. I really liked the recent article about kids being over prescribed medication. But if Russ can tell it like he seees it, he should expect to get some of that back. If that qualifies me for being banned, so be it. But a lot of others should have been long ago, too. I think more than anything it would possibly be that I may seem to be taking up for LL or Pwcca, but at times, they have been kinder to me on here than the Christians...you being the exception. If I have offended you I apologize, Bex. I don't have time to think much about what I say so should probably refrain from posting.

Nah, wouldn't say my beliefs are a comfort blanket, more of a confirmation and strength. That may offend you, irritate you, who knows? Who cares. God is who I answer to, not Pwcca or Pwcca's ideas of "truth". I wonder how your friend Linear feels when you call his faith a comfort blanket? Seems your apparent acknowledgement and "respect" for his and other people's beliefs are once again contradicted by your inability to hold back the underlying contempt, disrespect and anger. Hence why it's impossible to take you seriously.

Lying to oneself maybe something we've all done and not easy to come to terms with, at least not without a touch of humility and the grace of God. May He enlighten your mind and heart Pwcca and you'll get to see yourself as you see us (faulty/sinful). Perhaps you'll resist. Who knows?

Sadly, projecting your own faults (venom and hate) onto others probably won't help the process of facing yourself, as it won't for any of us. Most people on here, no matter what beliefs, have shown on occassion the humility to admit their faults. Can you do this too? Or is it just safer and more preferable/comfortable to project it onto others?

Hi Jeanie,

I can well understand anger and annoyance if there are some issues with what somebody has posted (been there myself). But I don't believe Russ deserves personal putdowns, unless he has shown a history of being a tyranical, hypocritical, deliberately deceptive liar. Or someone trying to put themselves in the place of Christ. Which he has NOT done. Instead, I've seen him continually try and point the way TO Christ.

Since we believe in the same Jesus do we not? In this day and age, this is needed more than ever that people unite under Christ, rather than be divided. We are saturated with the secular and and sheer contempt for Christ/Christians and morality. People who put themselves out there and battle fearlessly are willing to cop the backlash, anger and hate they KNOW they're going to get (as Christ Himself did) have my total admiration.

There is alot of in-fighting between denominations. Not just Christian V atheist/satanist/deist. And I know one must be careful when presenting another person's faith. But I think we have all done this one way or another at some point and are all guilty to some extent. And if we see something has been falsey presented, then we have every right to say so.

But some go much further than that on here. They use this forum as they wish, then insult the very person that's given them the priviledge of doing so. That I find sickening.

I'll try to keep this suggestion in mind.

This is a case of definition. Not to be confused with sharing common ideal(s).

It has nothing to do with me judging you to be a Christian.

I know more about Mormon doctrine than 98% of Mormons do. I have met many Mormon missionaries who know even less (astounding, but they will still win followers not versed in the Bible).

Mormonism is based on Scottish Rite Freemasonry. It's that simple.

When you examine the symbolism of the temple ceremonies, they confess Jesus to be the brother of Christ. You also wear the apron of the priesthood of lucifer during the ceremony. The ceremonies are secret to the public, for obvious reasons.

You wear underwear with symbolism from religions referred to (in the Bible) as being from the Babylonian mystery religions "for your protection".

Mormon temples are full of masonic symbolism. I've visited them myself many times. I've attended conference, personally see an "apostle", read significant parts (or all) of ALL of the main mormon doctrinal books. I've studied both positions (pro and con) related to mormon historical archeology. This is more than most Mormons do.

Then there is the Book of Abraham. The contradictions with Biblical scripture, and on and on.

Most mormons are very nice people. Some of them look to the church for fellowship or business contacts. Unfortunately, they are not interested in the symbology or the truth behind the organization. Of couse, this is also true for masons. They are not interested in the lucifarian oaths they take. They are usually only interested in the business advantages they gain.

God expects us to seek Him. He also expects us to be strong, faithful, intellectual, logical, loving, truthful, and to be considerate enough of others to tell them the truth.

I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but sometimes there is something that needs to be said that is so important, that it does not matter if it hurts someone's feelings.

If you were standing on railroad tracks with headphones on and a train was approaching from behind you, would you view me as a moral person if I let you get run over because I didn't want to scare you with the truth that a train was coming. This is the same type of situation.

The truth about eternal life, death, hell, love, and all of the warnings, teachings, admonitions and prophecies in the Bible about life are so important, that it's vital that I love you enough and that I have enough character to let you know if you're standing on the rail road tracks.

The best place for any mormon to start studying truth is to learn about all the places that mormon doctrine contradicts the Bible. You then have to decide which doctrine is correct. Yes, this is a good place to start.

I studied with mormon missionaries many times, and when they left, I felt the deep depression and spiritual oppression that many mormons experience. Yes, spiritual oppression often manifests itself as negative emotions. Some mormons having experienced these same emotions have committed suicide.

The same is true of some of those who get involved in witchcraft or magic. I personally know someone who attempted suicide after being involved in magic. It is not uncommon, and is usually associated with deep feelings of worthlessness and/or depression.

But God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind (self control).

I care about your salvation.

I feel sorry for you for I know how difficult it is to study things that threaten the comfort zone of your world view, yet it is important to do if you are concerned about knowing who God really is; And this is important indeed.

I'm sure you're a very well meaning person with good intentions, but don't neglect to study, as God told us to do, because He said the deception of the time near the end of the age (the time we are in right now) will be strong.

Don't be deceived. Just study and ask the God of the Bible for guidance. Be strong and persist. He is merciful and patient. We must be as well.

We must be strong.

From another thread "Homologous structures" are, by definition the result of evolution.

RAZD, tend to your flock.

The answer to these questions is found in Message Theory http://saintpaulscience.com/discuss.htm
is the best link I have handy.

Life has access to common foods, so it is practical for life to ingest and utilize common chemicals.

The similarities found serve to disprove the idea that life sprung up independently countless times throughout whatever ages people have imagined. The success of the scientific men in disproving spontaneous generation/abiogenesis has led to the abandonment of these older forms of evolutionism.

But life already disproved these forms! Spontaneous generation again, and again, and again, would not produce similar structures. Should man succeed in creating life in a lab, expect these old forms to experience a revival. God's message will still be clearly visible in creation, for all to see, just as in the past & present.

Yet lifeforms are distinct. They do not blend one into another. That Darwinism is false is evident for anyone to see, if they care to look. The evidence has always been right there, plain as it can be.

How ironic it is that none of my posts about the mathematical absurdity have been properly refuted, neither have any of my statements about the roulette wheel (probability) from many months ago or missing transitional forms or symmetry, etc., etc.

My posts are not fallacies. My posts are brick walls that are responded to with spin and character assassination because there is no way to properly refute these facts.

One of the most obvious examples of evolutionists lying about what evolution really is relates to the attempt to convert evolution into natural selection. Statements have been made that abiogenesis has never been taught as evolution.

This is laughable.

...But, it is never dealt with by evolutionists.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z



How ironic.

Do you follow the threads?

I have responded and asked that it be pointed out to me. When I checked back a week later, no response was made.

Unbelievable.

I am considering cracking down on those who make blatantly false arguments as well as strawman arguments from this forum. The spinning (which is lying) is out of control.

CTD, the substance in question is called keratin, not collagen, so my bad. Keratin is a protein that makes up most of the material in the cells forming the beaks, feathers, hair, hooves, horns, nails, scales and skin of animals.

In other words, no matter how different the 'kind' of animal, no matter what its needs are, apparently the creationist god was so limited in his abilities that he had to use and reuse the same substance over and over, and over again. He couldn't even once come up with a new substance, better designed to suit the animal's lifestyle. That's why your tender skin and a lion's nasty claws, a horse's strong hooves and a bird's delicate feathers, a cow's horn and a husky dog's warm fur are all basically the same thing. I don't think you really addressed this in your response.



Failure there then, since the vast majority of creatures that have existed are now extinct.



So where in creationist theory is your evidence that it was one god and one god only who created everything? Apart from "it says so in the Bible"?



Interesting how you are separating all of these. Are you honestly saying that Darwin is the only one on the list who accepts evolution? Interesting. As far as I'm aware, I've made it pretty clear that I accept evolution to be the best explanation for what we see in fossils and how they are sorted in the geological column.

I think you're on about spontaneous generation again because you like to use this to paint scientists as idiots. People used to think the earth was flat, too, until science proved otherwise. People have held a lot of erroneous beliefs in the past until science proved otherwise, and this includes spontaneous generation. Case closed.

I'm still waiting to see you back up any of your claims with solid evidence.

Point out a specific example of "spin" and "character assassination", Russ. And which of your statements is a "brick wall" dealing a devastating blow to your opponents' claims. While you're at it, tell me why the "character assassination" you claim is more reprehensible than you telling RAZD that he is a liar. (Post 43065)

Abiogenesis theory and evolutionary theory are not the same, as has been pointed out to you. If you were told otherwise, that person was incorrect. This has been explained to you.



So you propose to censor the statements here which do not fit with RussTolution and to promote your own opinions as the only true facts, while claiming everything else is a lie. Well it would be an interesting final statement for the creationists here.

Here and in the following post one finds.. Well, nobody can whine about the questioning. I must agree that there is indeed little room for doubt, for those who read Linear's posts.
Of course, it isn't "politically correct" for Russ T to ask questions about persons like this posting on his forum. :death:

I am sincerely laughing out loud at this request. Unbelievable.



I am again laughing out loud.

You actually spun my words. Astounding.

To clarify (which wouldn't be necessary without your spin), I was telling him what I believe about him, which is a true fact. I do believe this about him. It has nothing to do with character assassination. You're glumping again.



I am laughing out loud three-times as much now.

There are no more proficient spinners on this forum than you. You are the best! That's my honest opinion, which I fear is shared by many.

You may try actually using my own wordage next time to avoid being classified as a spinner.

You know Linda, I actually like you as a person. You've got a sense of character that is unique and passionate.

But you really do spin things like no one I've seen. Really, I mean no offense.

Your photo reminds me of the Mona Lisa. When you look at one part of the photo, you have a sense of sadness. When you look at it another way, you look like you're subtle grinning.

So the answer appears to be "no, my words are enough, without any examples or evidence to back them up."



I interpreted "I believe you are a dishonest person" to be equivalent to calling him a liar. Unless there's a more suitable word to describe a dishonest person. I can't think of one. It isn't character assassination to respond to someone's claims by not respoinding to those claims specifically, and simply calling them a liar? You do know what the logical fallacy of ad hominem is?



So you don't propose to censor anyone? Maybe you can explain what you mean by "cracking down"? You are claiming that the opposition's statements are "straw men" though this is your opinion and not fact as such. If I'm wrong in drawing my conclusions then please let me know what your original intent in that statement was.

More ad hominem about "spin" as well, which appears to be a favourite word at the moment. Until you specifically explain why you disagree with anyone's statements, I'm afraid this doesn't prove anything. I'd like to see you directly address any of the science that's been offered here with something more than an argument from incredulity.

The basic problem with these types of conversations is that it nearly always comes down to deciding who you believe.

My position on evolution is that the science is as fraudulent as amalgam, vaccine safety, autism, herbal-dangers, and so on-and-on.

There are a group of powerful people who control nearly all of the information in the world today, including scientific information. All of these lies, such as about mercury and amalgam fillings, are promoted to achieve a social agenda.

Evolution is no different. It's not about science. It's not even scientific. It all about social engineering through propaganda and disinformation.

I could not care less how many people don't agree with me because I know two things:

(1) I've done my homework very well and know what is going on in these fields and in politics, and

(2) I know how many other people try to act like they've done their homework but have not (many).

My arguments against evolution are fundamental because evolution is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, fundamental lies are more effective than lies about analytical details. In evolution, analytical lies are told to support (prop up) a fundamental one.

Evolution is a lie so stupid:

(1) people often look at it,
(2) then they look at the number of people who are claimed to believe it,
(3) then they wonder if they are missing something.

This human attribute is personified in the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Humans are really followers at heart. The problem is, those not following Christ are like the blind following the blind.

Q: What do you get when you combine a ghost + a kamikaze pilot + Don Quixote?

A: A proper analogy for RAZD & the character issue. He repeatedly commits character suicide, thinking it will damage his enemies. (The ghost part allows him to do it again & again.)

Second riddle:

Q: How do can you tell an evolutionist has been quoted out-of-context?

A: The quoted statement is true.

That's just a joke, but I really think it's the standard currently applied by the local evocrew.

Another funny thing about evolutionists:
That which they themselves cannot imagine, they require folks to accept as established fact.

I'm pleased to hear it. I've been waiting for a testable alternative hypothesis which explains the sorting of the fossil record in the geological column. Presumably you have one. Presumably you do accept the geological column for what it is, since you say that you are not a YEC. (Since you have not clarified this I am assuming that you are an old-earth creationist, though some more details on what it is you really do believe would be helpful in discussions.)

Hi CTD,

Thou hast cited a detailed post by RAZD about bat evolution. Mayhap thou canst clarify what thy beef about it is rather than mock as is thy wont. And maybe we can stick to ordinary English while we're at it.

Anyone can sit there and say "that's rubbish." But can you prove it or are you simply going to offer more arguments from incredulity.

Jeanie: I answer affirmative to all Russ's questions but he still doesn't "judge" me to be Christian. I think he's a little big for his britches. Sometimes I wonder if he isn't thinking he is starting his own church. He does have some followers.

Russ: It has nothing to do with me judging you to be a Christian.

I know more about Mormon doctrine than 98% of Mormons do. I have met many Mormon missionaries who know even less (astounding, but they will still win followers not versed in the Bible).

Jeanie: Bull hockey. How about focusing on the fact that these young men in their prime hormonal state take out 2 years of their lives completely devoting themselves (no dating, music, tv) to scripture study and PAY FOR THEIR OWN MISSIONS.... I've known young men who put off promising athletic careers or even just their schooling. My son-in-law is a returned missionary going to school to become a Dr. If he hadn't spent those 2 years on a mission, he could've been in med school by now. He spent about $9000 of his own or families money to go out and teach the gospel. Our Bishops don't get paid. They put in many hours, yet still work full time jobs and have families to take care of. My present Bishop is only in his early 30s and has 5 little kids. Do you think they do this for their health???? No, they don't know everything there is to know....and many times they have been sheltered and sometimes just go cause they are supposed to. The majority of the time, though, they come back with great discipline from it, and a strong testimony that they might not have had before. Yet they get doors slammed in their faces. Some have been threatened. Hmmm. What would make them do that????

Yet all you focus on is that they might not know the Bible as well as they should. In my case, by the time I was 14 I had read and studied it which is why I had so many unanswered questions....

Russ: Mormonism is based on Scottish Rite Freemasonry. It's that simple.

Jeanie: You don't know what you are talking about and won't listen to the truth on that....

Russ: When you examine the symbolism of the temple ceremonies, they confess Jesus to be the brother of Christ.

Jeanie: BULL. I've been through the temple many times and that is a lie!

Russ: You also wear the apron of the priesthood of lucifer during the ceremony. The ceremonies are secret to the public, for obvious reasons.

Jeanie: Yah - because people like you twist and mock what goes on in there. You are listening to the wrong sources here...and dark ones at that. Everything is symbolic of the Priesthood and the apron is of the leaves that covered Adam and Eve's nakedness.

Russ: You wear underwear with symbolism from religions referred to (in the Bible) as being from the Babylonian mystery religions "for your protection".

Jeanie: That is your twisted interpretation.

Russ: Mormon temples are full of masonic symbolism. I've visited them myself many times. I've attended conference, personally see an "apostle", read significant parts (or all) of ALL of the main mormon doctrinal books. I've studied both positions (pro and con) related to mormon historical archeology. This is more than most Mormons do.

Jeanie: None of this qualifies you to know what you are talking about cause you don't understand any of it. Just like with evolution, knowledge is not wisdom. The symbolism is all about the Priesthood. Has it occurred to you that the Masons really DID try to protect those priesthood ordinances from the original church through the ages? Joseph Smith said that they had a form of PH but it was apostate. The symbols are about the Melchizidek and Aaronic Priesthoods which are QUITE Biblical. I believe the symbolism on the Nauvoo temple had to do with the 3 degrees of glory. The Anchorage, AK temple had those, too. SO?????

Russ: Then there is the Book of Abraham. The contradictions with Biblical scripture, and on and on.

Jeanie: You want to name them?

Russ: Most mormons are very nice people. Some of them look to the church for fellowship or business contacts. Unfortunately, they are not interested in the symbology or the truth behind the organization. Of couse, this is also true for masons. They are not interested in the lucifarian oaths they take. They are usually only interested in the business advantages they gain.

Jeanie: That is because their is no big evil mystery to the symbolism. And your other statements are certainly not the case with me or any other member I know. I suppose you've met the several million members in the church? They don't let us use rosters to promote business.

Russ: God expects us to seek Him. He also expects us to be strong, faithful, intellectual, logical, loving, truthful, and to be considerate enough of others to tell them the truth.

Jeanie: Which is what I'm doing....cause I love you man! Don't you feel loved?

Russ: I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but sometimes there is something that needs to be said that is so important, that it does not matter if it hurts someone's feelings.

Jeanie: I totally agree. Which is why I'm trying to help you.

Russ: If you were standing on railroad tracks with headphones on and a train was approaching from behind you, would you view me as a moral person if I let you get run over because I didn't want to scare you with the truth that a train was coming. This is the same type of situation.

Jeanie: Not on this. You offer lots and lots of things for us to be scared of, though.

Russ: The truth about eternal life, death, hell, love, and all of the warnings, teachings, admonitions and prophecies in the Bible about life are so important, that it's vital that I love you enough and that I have enough character to let you know if you're standing on the rail road tracks.

Jeanie: Hmmm. What if I believe that about you?

Russ: The best place for any mormon to start studying truth is to learn about all the places that mormon doctrine contradicts the Bible. You then have to decide which doctrine is correct. Yes, this is a good place to start.

Jeanie: That is where you are wrong, because it simply proves to CLARIFY the Bible. However, go ahead and state what you think....So YOU know the correct interpretation???

Russ: I studied with mormon missionaries many times, and when they left, I felt the deep depression and spiritual oppression that many mormons experience. Yes, spiritual oppression often manifests itself as negative emotions. Some mormons having experienced these same emotions have committed suicide.

Jeanie: That is because you were not really listening to them. Do you think satan wants you to believe in the truth? Has it ever ocurred to you that SATAN was oppressing you? Don't you think I got hit with all the anti-Mormon garbage out there?

Russ: The same is true of some of those who get involved in witchcraft or magic. I personally know someone who attempted suicide after being involved in magic. It is not uncommon, and is usually associated with deep feelings of worthlessness and/or depression.

Jeanie: While LDS members are no less vulnerable to depression than anyone else....I guarantee that those who truly believe and live their religion are the happiest people in the world. But life is not without opposition and we are here to experience trials.

Russ: But God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

I care about your salvation.

I feel sorry for you for I know how difficult it is to study things that threaten the comfort zone of your world view, yet it is important to do if you are concerned about knowing who God really is; And this is important indeed.

Jeanie: You know what Russ? You want to know the truth? I have had a rough year with members of the church to include my LDS sister in law. Sometimes I wish I didn't know it was true.... Because it is harder to live. Those garments you are blaspheming are to remind of us covenants for purity and modesty. I have not had an easy year marriage wise. Life is not easy. I have felt much like Job this past year. BUT I CANNOT DENY WHAT I KNOW TO BE TRUE. We are on opposite ends of that spectrum. You are dead wrong my friend.... Some day you will find that out.

Do you want to know the truth? I get the impression that you are emotionally stunted.... You tell everyone else what their problems are, but perhaps you need to take a look into your own heart and psyche.

Russ: I'm sure you're a very well meaning person with good intentions, but don't neglect to study, as God told us to do, because He said the deception of the time near the end of the age (the time we are in right now) will be strong.

Jeanie: Yes, I'm witnessing that right now...

Russ: Don't be deceived. Just study and ask the God of the Bible for guidance. Be strong and persist. He is merciful and patient. We must be as well.

Jeanie: Russ, don't you get it?? I HAVE. And I actually gave it a fair shake. I did this alone. I have been the only member of my family for going on 33 years. I have dealt with nothing but opposition from what LDS in-laws I have. I have not always liked or felt a part of the 25 or so wards I've been a member of in my years of moving around. People are people. I avoid cliques like the plague. BUT WHETHER IT FILLS MY SOCIAL NEEDS OR NOT (or business?? I pay 10% of my income to the church....), I CANNOT DENY THAT THIS CHURCH HOLDS THE RESTORED FULLNESS OF THE GOSPEL WITH ALL ITS RESTORED PRIESTHOOD COVENANTS WHICH YOU ARE BLASPHEMING. OFIT IS THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. If you want to believe God does not have a church on the earth at this time, then by all means, take it upon yourself to lead the way you think you are doing. But I stand as a witness to tell you that YOU ARE WRONG SIR. I've watched your attitude toward the truth get more and more vicious. You have rejected light. And then use the chemtrails to blame your issues on. You may want to watch out, Russ. Remember that post about those who have blasphemed God/Jesus and put themselves above them? That is exactly what satan tried to do, too.

Russ:We must be strong.

Jeanie: Yes, we must. Russ, you have some good beliefs and stances. There are most definitely evil and conspiring men running things. I have learned a lot on this site. I believe your heart is good, but you are literally turning from light on this.....And I fear you have no excuse having been taught as much as you say you have. But only the Lord can judge that... I won't judge nor condemn you the way you have me. The sad truth is that you are turning away from the very source that could heal you.....

If you want to ban me, go for it. Or at least tell me how the heck to unsubscribe. I don't want to at this time, but if I'm not allowed to speak my mind just as you have....show your colors and ban me.




[/quote]

Oh-h-h, forsooth, Linda, forsooth! How brilig and slithey of you, you Bandersnatch!

CTD, are you going to sit there and take this kind of punishment from her therewith and anon? I shall await your summons, by and by, and shan't be far, perched over hither and yon dale.

Yes, it was rather childish of me. It just grates after a while. I could pull out all my own dazzling vocabulary too but it would be a silly thing to do when I'm trying to actually communicate with people.

May your borrogroves be mimsy.

Hi Jeanie

I know this is between you and Russ, but hope you don't mind me giving a few observations (from ignorance).



I do not know enough about Mormonism Jeanie, so I cannot comment on what you or Russ are saying with any real judgement calls. But I have indeed seen these young men go from door to door and do indeed risk having those doors slammed in their faces. Their demeanor is always very gentle, they are dressed modestly and nicely and their courage and faith is admirable. I couldn't do it! But I never studied the Mormon faith, so I can't be certain about the foundation of their faith and I wouldn't like to judge.



There is symbolism in our church that has been twisted and demonised that is completely incorrect. I have been horrified at some of it. If that's happened here, I am sorry. I think we need to be very careful when representing another person's personal religion, as there are plenty out there who are demonising aspects of it, without being interested in the actual meaning from the real source itself. Much false propoganda. It's ripe, I've been witness to it.



Many people suffer depression and suicidal thoughts, no matter what denomination. Suicides happen in any denomination. As does any illness. Suffering, enduring our cross is not limited to particular suffering. Christ Himself was in mental and spiritual anguish, not just physical. The key is to hold his hand and keep the faith that sometime, somehow, He will take you through it. Focus on Him and the cross. Some may have weakened and perhaps not been as strong in their faith. I can't judge that, there are some horrible horrible illnesses/toxins out there that can reduce a person to a state of a human wreck. I have been there many times with mercury poisoning and at times I shudder when thinking back at how close I was to ending it all. Sufferings can afflict anybody and any part of the body/mind. Some of the worst are the psychological ones. Nobody is immune, BUT Christ does offer graces/strengths and insights to suffering. He gives it meaning. But sometimes that is hard to get through to a person who is almost out of their mind in anguish. I believe there are extreme circumstances to which only God understands and only He can judge.

Admittedly occult involvement gave me a sense of emptiness, even when I was healthier that I couldn't explain and torment at night before sleep. Christ lifted me out from it and gave me a sense of fullness. However, at evenso, it did not always lift the agony of my later sufferings. It was sheer faith and will that got me through. And there were times I felt abandoned. So did Jesus.



I'm not sure Jeanie whether Mormonism is the true church, as I take Christ as the authority first before anybody, any prophet. Christ and His word come first (we have prophets in our church also). Testing them by Him and His word should always be done. If there are contradictions or anything that puts Christ or any aspect of His word in confusion, which leads to doubt, then alarm bells should ring. Christ Himself has been tested time and time again and proven Himself to be who He is. But what about our prophets?

But I do appreciate having anything clarified that maybe an incorrect or unfair misrepresentation of your church.

One thing is certain, Christ's word has been tested and proven for over 2000 years. There many miraculous healings that have occured, with doctor's verifications that it's overwhelming. Many wheelchairs, crutches left after prayer crusades, interventions etc. It does occur, and so does the supernatural. Been witness to it myself.

So you question the efficiency of a substance ideally suited to many various purposes? You must hate things like plastic, wood, steel, etc. You know, the things mankind uses for many purposes.

I would've guessed you'd be pro-recycling; but now I see how disgusted you are by the concept. Ah well...

We still have life.

You wouldn't be suggesting the old fall-less paradigm, by chance?
Theories do not contain evidence. Theories explain evidence. Evidence supports theories. These matters are pretty easy to keep straight, if one makes any effort whatsoever.

Now apart from complaining that life actually does look like the work of one designer, do you have anything to contribute?
The words won't twist that far without a great deal more effort. You need to confuse & redefine more terms. Getting lazy?

I think anyone who missed the point should read the post again. Life resists explanation by repeated spontaneous generation/abiogenesis events. I can't imagine how anyone would fail to understand if they were paying attention.

I'm still waiting for evidence that you can see.

Now it's pretty clear that life resists not only the current stories, but all bogus stories of the past. One cannot doubt the anything-but-the-truth crowd would love the chance to switch back to the older versions of evolutionism, or some silly multiple creator nonsense. But observation will always be sufficient to debunk any of it.

I imagine gnashing teeth, but I acknowledge it's probably just my imagination. Good thing I'm not like the followers of Darwin, or I'd insist everyone believe in what I imagine.

I wasn't the one who brought up "homologous". If you don't know what the word means, you really should stick to ordinary English. Propaganda terms can kinda backfire when tossed about just for the sake of impressing the ignorant.

CTD, hey hey. How the heck you been?

Anyway, your example using plastic, wood and steel is problematic in that those are three separate materials, each comprised of very separate elements, whereas LindaLou's example of keratin is one substance found in many different forms (hair, fingernails, hooves, etc.)

It's probably not my place or anything to say but you might find your arguments come across as more presentable and inviting to discussion/debate if you toned the anger down in your posts; I mean, I know you're just doing it for fun and all and that you aren't really mad over something so silly as a casual discussion, but some people might not read it that way. But that's just me.

Anyway, all the best. May your gods bless you with Their divinity.

It's one of those deals, as they say, "You had to be there." Context is everything.

You had to see RAZD go on and on about bats evolving. You had to see how he behaved; how insistent he was. Then to see him asking for help because he himself cannot imagine this.

Oh wait! You were there. Have you no sense of humour?

RAZD is the one having a credulity crisis. Please try to keep up.

Best I can tell, you have credulity to spare, so perhaps you can lend him a little. But don't charge compound interest - he doesn't understand how it works, and that would be unethical.

Water & carbon. There, now 3 = 3. Happy?

You're lying again, CTD:

This is not the first time you have made a completely false claim about me. I guess when you can't prove my argument wrong you have to falsify what I said eh?

Curiously, you have not shown a single thing about a single one of the various fossils NOT being intermediate in form, or in any way invalidated bat evolution from 75 Mya old shrew-like animals with homologous teeth and other shared traits with bats.

All you have are mockery and false representation. It's all you do, on and on, ad nauseum.

So how about raising your post level out of the gutter, drop the third grade attitude, and actually deal with the issue/s: fossils exist that are intermediate in form between ancestral fossils and descendant fossil, (whether they are bats, whales, foramins, horses, hominids, pelycodus, therapsids, fishibians, or whatever). They are, in fact, along the line of descent with transition from the ancestral form of organisms to the descendant form of organisms, the are by definition transitional fossils. As predicted by Darwin.

See if you can do that without misrepresentation and falsehood.

Enjoy.

I'm questioning why there are so many similarities between organisms if a creator god could create anything he wanted out of anything he wanted. He gets to make the rules. Yet we can trace shared traits and homologies and we can tell the difference between homology and convergent evolution. I'll let you enjoy banging your head against the wall with RAZD on that, that's your discussion with him.



Egads, thou saidst thusly that life was "designed for survival." Most of it hasn't survived. And we live a bit of a tenuous existence; we could be wiped out in any number of natural and human-made ways. This statement is meaningless.



I'm glad to observe that thou understandest this fundamental paradigmal concept thusly. Now maybe you can answer the actual question I asked, which was:



Are you telling me that there is no evidence supporting this idea? My jaw doth drop.



So you think that Stephen Gould and I and the others on your list do not accept evolution and you list us separately from Dawrin. You are a hoot.



And you and Russ continue to display your ignorance of the theory of evolution by consistently claiming that it is synonymous (heretofore) with abiogenesis, though real scientists make no such claim.



You continue to claim that ToE and an old earth are "bogus" yet you provide no evidence herewithtofore for such. ToE explains the sorting of the fossil record. Various dating methods used by various labs around the world, which compare results, consistently show that the earth is over 4 billion years old. Claiming "I don't believe it" ain't gonna poke big holes in any of this, however much you'd like to wish it would. Enjoy your fishing lures of faith because that's the sort of "bogus" science clearly on display here.

Can it. I don't belong to that forum and I think you should leave this discussion there. What I saw was a well-written scientific post presenting much of the information that was presented here. And you, as usual, providing zero reason for why you're sitting in your chair laughing at things you don't understand and the research of people with years of education and experience in the field under their belts. Guess you know more than them but are just pretending not to, aren't you?

Well looks like your attempts to bait and put CTD off arent' having much affect..... That must be yet another source of frustration for you, as I can see you're really trying hard.

I am sure God will indeed bless the posts that stay faithful to his creation and word. Thank you

Thanks for your kind words, Bex. I have been worrying I was too harsh and, if I was, am sorry.

Wow, all you need is a set of pompoms.

Yeah, I'm really choked up that he actually answered something.

There now. Whether you bother to edit/delete over there, we have it here.

RAZD is asking for help concocting an evostory for bat evolution. Call it what you want. I call it funny.

What's even funnier is he omits some important parts. Take the fingers on your hand & lengthen them - unevenly. Longer and longer... pretty useless. Okay, extremely useless. In fact, most folks who consider the matter objectively must give up and laugh right here.

I like to continue, for even more laughs. Add webbing. Add it at any point that's convenient.

Now your hand still won't be a batwing. It'll be useless as a hand and useless as a wing. In order to make it open and close like the wing of the bat, you still need to rotate your knuckle joints 90 degrees. (Just look at one of the bat skeletons & try to lay your hand out like that - you'll see what I mean.) Now at some point between 30 and 60 degrees of knuckle rotation, you're going to achieve optimal uselessness. You can't really grasp anything (don't forget the uneven lengths), and you sure can't fly.

Don't forget, every bit of this only proceeds because it is "more fit" than what was before! How a long-fingered shrew's supposed to manage? I can't say. But it not only has to somehow get by, it has to out-compete the others. I don't care if it's a regular shrew, a tree shrew, or a water shrew. None of them are better off with useless paws.
Awwww. With so many "shared traits", how can it be hard to imagine up a story? Indeed, with no intermediates to get in the way, you have a lot more creative freedom than you would if any had been found.
Stop mocking science. Stop mocking the intellectual capacity of each and every potential reader. Then what will I have left to mock?

Say what? You make a lot of assertions there. But they fail to impress. You have presented pictures, conclusions, and speculations. You should be thrilled if any of your junk has not been debunked.
Must eat you up that I don't need to resort to such. Stop projecting your mentality onto creationists and maybe you might learn something yet.

Now I expect folks to say I "just made up" the bit about the fingers getting longer and useless, and no evolutionist actually believes this. Look at A and look at Z. Look at shrew and look at bat. It's no wonder they don't believe it, and wish to imagine something else. But what else can anyone possibly imagine? Shrew - to - bat. They claim it. They require us to accept it. I refuse.

Upon reflection, my post falls short of the cheerleading qualities expected for the priviledge of receiving pompoms. So, with that in mind, I think you're stuck with both for now.

Let me know when you're ready to lay down the pompoms. I'm cheering you on for an early retirement.

And I hope nobody's holding their breath waiting for an objective falsification test relating to "transitionals".

One that doesn't ask "What can you claim cannot be imagined?" One that does not require one to assume the evostories are true. One that does not openly mock science.

Which doesn't prove your point in the slightest. It is not a serious discussion, but intended to be fun. If you want to add to the discussion, please feel free.

This is your opinion, one we know is questionable. Do you see the word "help" in that post? Do you see an appeal for assistance?

The funny part is that what is going on is having a little fun, an intellectual exercise, hypothesizing on the behavioral path leading between known ancestor and known descendant. You raised the question of imagining the link, and I thought it might be a fun thing to do. That does not make it a scientific process or even necessary to the current knowledge on bat evolution. It is just hypothesizing on the part of evolution that does not fossilize, the behaviors of organisms, but that is the link between known fossils with shared traits.

No, I am not asking for "help" to imagine the evolution of the bat, I can imagine quite well, however I can also distinguish the difference between imagination and fact. Apparently you still have some trouble with that.

The facts are the fossils, and the fossils show evolutionary links by the shared traits: these are not imaginary.

Hypothesizing intermediates between known fossils has lead to some new fossil finds, like Tiktaalik, but the hypothesis can easily be invalidated by the next find.

Now there YOU go imagining things, YOU are imagining the order in which these elements evolve: pretty silly to do without any evidence, of course, so you must just be doing it for fun.

Try looking at the aye-aye if you think this is funny.

Nothing has stopped you yet from mocking what you don't understand.

So why then do YOU imagine that the hand rotated at that time?

Which probably means that what YOU imagined didn't happen. Of course you could post your hypothesis on that forum and see how well it is received, after all you, your ability to do simple math, your frequent misrepresentation of facts and your failure to substantiate your position are well known there.

Of course your own complete failure of imagination on how the wing of a bat evolves, does not mean that the bat did not evolve from a tree climbing shrew-like insectivore that happens by chance to have the same kind of teeth as bats.

Of course, and the real fun would be when they find the next intermediate fossil and you can check your hypothesis against the facts.

And yet all you have on this post is more mockery.

And you STILL have not addressed the fact that the bat fossil is STILL an intermediate form between the ancestral shrew-like organism with homologous teeth.

And still you avoid the issue of actual fossils of actual intermediate forms between ancestral forms and descendant forms. I don't expect you to be impressed, I expect you to show people why you think they are not intermediate. You were the one who asserted there were only a handful or two of transitional fossils, and we are way beyond that number. Either you demonstrate why they are not intermediate forms, or you have rather remarkable hands, or your assertion is demonstrated false.

Yet it has been demonstrated.

Now that is just another one of your misrepresentations, CTD. Nobody requires you to do anything, you are free to remain ignorant of the way evolution works and the way evolutionary science is actually done by evolutionary biologists.

Enjoy.

Hi Russ T

How ironic it is that none of my posts about the mathematical absurdity have been properly refuted, neither have any of my statements about the roulette wheel (probability) from many months ago, or symmetry.
Well I pointed out that your claim was based on a straw man and so had no substance to it here.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42073#Post42073
You have failed to refute this refutation of your position to date, how ironic! I addressed your claim in more detail here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42148#Post42148
and some more details here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42431#Post42431
And yet again here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42431#Post42431
There’s more but I think that’s enough for now.

One of the most obvious examples of evolutionists lying about what evolution really is relates to the attempt to convert evolution into natural selection. Statements have been made that abiogenesis has never been taught as evolution.
I have no idea if someone has ever taught abiogenesis as part of evolution, Darwin specifically explained that it was not part of the theory and that’s certainly the main stream position today but I can’t speak for everyone in the middle. The only people I’ve heard suggesting this idea, ad nauseum as it happens, are creationists who speak as if this is part of the standard definition of evolutionary theory. This was clearly false when Darwin penned Origins and it is false today. If some have gotten it wrong and taught otherwise in the mean time then they need to learn their subject properly before they start spruking about it.
The Origin of Species, Chapter 14: Recapitulation and Conclusion - by Charles Darwin

I believe Russell's and/or Mordred's question about his bogus "Darwin" quotation has also been unresponded to

How ironic.

Do you follow the threads?

I have responded and asked that it be pointed out to me. When I checked back a week later, no response was made.

Unbelievable.

I responded to you here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42417#Post42417
the false quote in question was this one
—Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
It was, fraudulently or in error, attributed to Charles Darwin, actually it was N.C. Gillespie who said these words, Darwin’s words have been dropped after this quote was lifted from the book.
I also pointed it out to you here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=41548#Post41548
and here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42040#Post42040
and Mordred raised it again here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42068#Post42068

You seem to like this quote, you’ve used it here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=42031#Post42031
and here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=41467#Post41467
and here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=33730#Post33730
and here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=30391#Post30391
and here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=30385#Post30385
and here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=29148#Post29148
and here
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=27159#Post27159

I am considering cracking down on those who make blatantly false arguments as well as strawman arguments from this forum. The spinning (which is lying) is out of control.
That sounds like a great idea if it can be done fairly and impartially.

My position on evolution is that the science is as fraudulent as amalgam, vaccine safety, autism, herbal-dangers, and so on-and-on.
Now this is getting really scary, I hadn’t thought of this before but there are probably lots of people here who believe Russ T is an authority on amalgam fillings, vaccine safety etc etc yet he has shown that he has virtually no idea of how science works and how biological sciences work in these threads. Does it scare anyone else that Russ T speaks as an authority to people while showing his profound ignorance of science here?

There are a group of powerful people who control nearly all of the information in the world today, including scientific information. All of these lies, such as about mercury and amalgam fillings, are promoted to achieve a social agenda.
I have a hard time swallowing mega conspiracy theories without evidence and I cant’ see how fillings are a means of social control. Can you explain that one to me?

(1) I've done my homework very well and know what is going on in these fields and in politics, and
Then how come you don’t even seem to realise that Natural Selection is a crucial part of ToE, that it is occurring at every single stage, in every single generation and to every single individual, it doesn’t wait till the end as you have repeatedly suggested. How can someone who claims to know anything at all about ToE make such blunders Russ T? and not just once or twice but over and over again? You don’t understand how the HOX gene’s and their like explain symmetry, you don’t seem to realize that Natural Selection works on every single generation and you don’t show any signs that you understand how ToE explains the accumulation of beneficial traits. I’m not asking you to believe these things, that’s up to you, but can you at least try to show us that you understand what it is that ToE says, that would make these conversations far more interesting and productive I think.

(2) I know how many other people try to act like they've done their homework but have not (many).
There are a few here who seem to have at least a grasp of Evolutionary theory 101. Even that level of understanding from the creationists would improve the level of the conversations here.

My arguments against evolution are fundamental because evolution is fundamentally flawed.
Fundamental arguments are the best but they must at least show that the maker of such arguments understands the basics of what they are discussing or it’s a futile effort. If you talk about Natural Selection as if it has to wait in the wings until natural selection has invented something new and novel, as you have Russ T, then you have failed in a most profound way to understand even what Darwin said.

In Reason

Russell

You don't see me protesting Russ T's questioning me. I don't see this post of mine as being insulting to Christianity, just to you. So, it is not evidence that I am lying about my Christianity.

You and SoSick regularly insult me and my beliefs.
SoSick appears to be greatly passionate about her beliefs so I understand her offense when I seem to tread on those beliefs.

You, on the other hand, seem to take great glee in insulting others even when they haven't offended you. Maybe it is their very existence that offends you. Regardless, no one gives your claim to being a Christian a second thought despite your obvious condescending attitude and demeaning comments about others.

I admit that the above quoted post of mine was over the top, and despite my anger at your actions I should not have posted it. If I didn't ask your forgiveness already, I ask for it now.

Anyway, I will continue my belief that you are not a "true Christian" as long as the fruit you produce remains the same as you have displayed thus far. Not that you care one whit.