News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the formation of life from non-living matter. (from Wikipedia).

Simply stated, [color:"brown"]abiogenesis is the theory that rocks "evolve" into cells[/color].

This ridiculous theory is being taught (and has been for decades) as "evolution" in schools and colleges and is promoted in museums and displays world wide. It is the root of Darwinism.

Being raised in a medical family taught me at a young age that many intellectual-sounding words have extremely silly meanings behind them.

Here are some others just for entertainment.

"Ginglymoid" means "pertaining to or shaped like a hinged joint."

"Oligomenorrhea" is a medical term for infrequent menstrual periods.

"Fibromyalgia" is a term that simply means muscle pain.

Now think about this for a minute. If you went to a doctor because you had muscle pain and he diagnosed you with fibromyalgia, then you just might be inclined to take the medicine he prescribes.

If, on the other hand, you visited a doctor because you had muscle pain and he diagnosed you with "muscle pain", you'd probably ask for your money back.


It's been well said that if you want to create a new religion, you need to invent a new language that no one understands.

It's indicative of what your concepts of "truth" and "honesty" are when you quote from wikipedia for what abiogenesis means but then use your slogan straw man instead of what the article actually says:


Haven't you learned anything yet?


Distraction from the issue at hand coupled with the argument from incredulity.

Do you want to discuss the reality of abiogenesis and the evidence of objective reality that science has known about for some time?

I borrow this short list from a molecular biologist on another forum that actually studies abiogenesis, where she says:

[color:"blue"]We've known about the abiogenetic production of peptides for 30 years:

Miller, S. L. & Orgel, L. E. The Origins of Life on the Earth (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974).

Fox, S. W. & Dose, K. Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life (Dekker, New York, 1977).

We've known about self-replicating peptides for over 10 years.

Severin K, Lee DH, Kennan AJ, and Ghadiri MR, A synthetic peptide ligase. Nature, 389: 706-9, 1997

Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, and Ghadri MR, A self-replicating peptide. Nature, 382: 525-8, 1996

Since you don't have access to these journals, here's a sample:[/color]

[color:"blue"](Lee et. al, 1996.)[/color]

No mention of rocks. Or cells.

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.

I've just been reading that myself RAZD. MBG and I might be like chalk and cheese as far as our beliefs are concerned, but she knows her stuff. Thanks for the contrinbution. Due to conversations going off topic everywhich way here, I've touched on abiogenesis with SoSick in another thread. I can't honestly remember where it is.

Of course one of the big issues in discussing abiogenesis is how do you define LIFE? ... in other words, if you are trying to build an abiogenesis model, when do you know you have succeeded?

There are a number of definitions out there, each with difficulties. To me this means that the field is still in development, not without problems, but not with insurmountable problems.

Enjoy.

Personally I think the idea of panspermia is just dodging the issue, however intriguing it might be. Ultimately you would still need to explain where that extraterrestrial life came from and you're back at square one.

What do you think creationists will make of it if we discover life on another world? In my opinion it's only a matter of time because of probes we are sending to other planets and moons, and because the next generation of space telescopes will be able to image extrasolar planets as well as closely examine the spectrum of the light reflected by them. Scientists are already discussing what the possible signatures of life could be in those spectra.

Consider that there are organic molecules found in space, detected light-years away, and apparently universal, indicating that these molecules formed in space. Consider the energy of novas and the decline in heat\energy afterwards and condensation of molecules in the process. Amino acids from space can easily jump-start life on any planet.

To state out of hand from an ignorance of what nature is capable of that abiogenesis cannot happen is only demonstrating ignorance and fixed beliefs.

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.

I've linked Russ to a news story about organic molecules being discovered in space -- damned if I can find it anywhere here now. But he dismissed it with (you guessed it) "rocks can't turn into people."

I think this was the story:
Outer Space not so Lifeless After All

And today I was reading this:
Building Blocks of Life Can Form on Cold Rocky Planets Anywhere

What's amazing here is that the definition I provided of abiogenesis is essentially the same as the one you provided. The only difference is that the one you provided has a lot more scientific-sounding "fluff". Nevertheless, the fact remains that:

when you boil down the faith of abiogenesis, you are believing that rocks turn into humans given enough time.

It is truly amazing that you continue to deny this, but in another respect, it makes perfect sense because:

denial is the process that enables a faith in the religion of evolution.

The same is true of your statements about molecules in space. You are laying down a piece of paper next to the Empire State Building and claiming that you've almost reached the top, and this illustration is not out of scale.

I do believe that, although some people are bedazzled by the wordage and persona of these definitions, most others are capable of seeing through the illusion and are able to make the connection that abiogenesis means that rocks turn into humans given time. Of course, if the definition were given this way, no one would believe it. It is only through a redefinition of terms combined with an emotionally-appealing wordage that you can lure people into accepting the absurd.

Take, for example, the redefinition of MSG into any of its countless names.

This is an example of purposefully creating an efficient process in order to deceive people, that is, to hide the truth from people.

Additionally, the conversion from rocks to humans is impossible without an external intelligence because there are no bonding rules to support the vastly complex processes that would be required to assemble these components into a symmetrical, self-reproducing machine of such vast complexity. In short, there is not enough intelligence within the system, not by a long, long, long shot. Only an Intelligence external to the system would be capable of this kind of assembly (remember, we're talking about process here—abiogenesis is the definition of a process).

Finally, let me provide a living example of a very deluded person at work. Perhaps people will benefit by seeing themselves in the rationale he provides.

In a lecture, Dawkins is asked to consider that complexity is the result of an external intelligence. Dawkins then spoke eloquently for about 10 minutes, but in this entire time, he really says only this:

God is less likely to exist than man because He (God) is more complex.

Yes, it took about 10 minutes to say this. Why?

Because about 9 minutes and 45 seconds of this dialog are spent "sounding intelligent". This eloquent scientific-sounding speech is appealing to the emotions, and the fact is, a faith in something so illogical as evolution requires tremendous amounts of emotionalism.

So, the rationale of redefining evolution as abiogenesis is nothing more than another intellectual retreat for evolutionists. They attempt to redefine the theory as time goes on in order to save face and keep the religion alive in the face of a reemerging common sense among people. Notice that I don't say evidence because the evidence has been known for a long time.

The bottom line here is that a search for truth will make the one searching naked in that it will revel their true nature, and in the case with Dawkins, it is the true nature of delusion which is very inefficient, that is, it requires much effort to say simple things so as to maintain an aura (illusion) of intellectualism. In short, denial is very inefficient.

Let's have the integrity to admit that any attempt to upsell abiogenesis as evolution is nothing more than an intellectual retreat. Most anyone reading will remember what they were taught in school and that it was indeed called evolution.

See for yourself:

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Thanks Russ for your erudite response.
If you are not able to discern the difference between

[color:"white"]...[/color] [color:"green"]{SOUP}[/color]

and

[color:"white"]...[/color] [color:"red"]{ROCK}[/color]

Then I would seriously caution people buying herbal cures from you to check their mineral content....

Seriously Russ, it's not rocket science, no matter what was taught in your school, or more accurately, what you learned, it has always been a question of chemicals coming together and mixing - something rocks are incapable of but which soups do nicely.

We have also found that amino acids - those molecules that all proteins and other elements of life are made from - occur in space and frequently are carried to earth. That means we are really starting with chicken soup (complete with noodles).

The other end of the abiogenesis question is when you get a replicating system, one subject to copy error and selection, and thus evolution for better, improved and more stable replication systems. These do not need to be cellular life.

And we know of several replicating molecules.

Now you can either update you knowledge of reality or you can update your denial of reality, but just remember that denial of evidence is not faith.



It's all a matter of choice. Belief based on objective reality or refuge in fantasy.

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

This is good, real good...



Well, what a pot of choices RAZD. Your view, or your view.

Lemme see if I get this right... belief based on a worldview that 1+1 does not =2 ... or... anything else is fantasy.

ummm... ok.... right.

I'd really really hate to go mountian climbing with ya that's for sure. I need someone who knows which end is up at the very least.

That's what I hate about these 'deeep thinkers''' so much thinking going on that nothing ever get's done.

Why don't you spend a few minutes cleaning your desk RAZD. Put things in order, even if they are not perfectly identical, pick up the (pairs) of socks from the floor... vacuum a bit... it doesn't have to be perfect but the chaos is obvious even from a distance. You might live in a different perfect reality in your mind, but everyone else coming into the room only sees the mess.

It tickles me every time someone replies with insults and derogatory remarks when they lack anything constructive to the debate at hand to say.

It's even more amusing when people accuse posters like RAZD for evincing intellect in their post.

Yeah, shame on him for posting with rationale and logic. How dare he, right? RAZD, you should be ashamed of yourself for not belittling others every time you get backed into a corner. How dare you argue back with fact and reason!

I know! I agree. Shame on RAZD for posting with rationale and logic. How dare he! RAZD, you should be ashamed of yourself for not belittling others every time you get backed into a corner. How dare you argue back with fact and reason!

Shame on you RAZD!

I think I will go talk to God.Far be it from me to want to rule my own world. I think I have more than I can handle most days by myself.

well anyway, shame on you again RAZD!

good thinking Pwcca.

The scary thing is that I was clearly being outrageously sarcastic whereas you're quite serious, thus discrediting every thing you will ever say in a discussion from this point onward (not that your posts ever had much clout to begin with, given your juvenile debating tactics).

Hey Pwcca, I found this video of one of your gods at youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AveJSRL8KgQ


It's ok, I'm use to your sarcasm, no need to explain. I don't listen anyway.

I don't watch videos from the internet, takes way too long to download.

And as you have no clue who my gods are - nor indeed does anyone outside my family and coven - it's impossible that something on Youtube is in any way correlated with my patron deities. You won't find information on my family religion on the internet, because it's not there. Thanks for taking the time to invest in it however.

you're welcome.

you must have a really slow connection if you can't download 1 minute videos. Do you use a rotary phone or something?

really really personal gods huh? And let me guess, you are their world.

I think I'd be more than just a little bit suspicious of any 'gods' that required me to keep their identities secret.

I would wonder... do they not want anyone to know I worship them or do they not want anyone to know where they are?

Because... any 'god' or 'gods' that have truly achieved the status of 'god' cannot possibly be known only to one person, his family and coven. If that is really the case, then those 'gods' are not gods... they are just leaders of a very small group that has decided to follow them it would appear. I mean, if you are the only people that worship these 'gods', what on earth makes you think they are 'gods'? they sound more like spirits or demons to me... hiding spirits afraid of being found out. Have they threatened you?

Jesus keeps that type of stuff away from us. It's a big burden to have to deal with invisible manipulative trouble makers on a daily basis. Most people call those type of situations hauntings.

If you'd like I can ask Jesus for you to show those spirits who God really is. I think those spirits are deceiving you, they are not gods. They are wandering spirits that simply need a place to call home and warm bodies that welcome them. When you call them 'gods' it's the equivalent of comparing a small weak vagabond gang of outlaws to the king of the universe. Just because you worship them does not really make them gods except in your own life.

I'm not here to have a religious debate with you, SoSick. If you're so inexorably fixated on understanding my belief system, you'll have to start investigating on your own - and that requires use of the real world, not the internet. As someone who has proven their inability to post in a polite manner, the last thing I'm about to do is deliver you information which you can then use to degrade and otherwise belittle those around you. You believe my deities are spirits and not gods (quibble at the definition thereof at your leisure - I'm not about to), I believe your Jesus Christ never existed and is little more than a plagiarized persona extracted from religions far predating christianity by thousands of years. And that's perfectly fine. Let's both continue holding our own separate beliefs.

We're talking about evolution here. Let's stick to that.

So, getting back to the topic at hand -- that being, the claim that rocks can turn into men -- I don't know of a single evolutionist who believes this, so I'd be curious, Russ (not you, SoSick) in why you continue to accuse them of this belief. Especially when posters like RAZD and Linda have expressly stated otherwise. I'd like to know. The fact of evolution is about the ever changing status of each individual species, not about rocks floating in space and miraculously morphing into humans. That's just absurd and I'd be more than happy for you to point out even one person to me who believes this.

Well I wouldn't expect my opinion of your demons to bother you Pwcca.

Considering your opinion of Jesus and your constant reiteration of how much you hate Christians, I would have thought you would expect a bit of contention on the issue now and then.

I think your demons have you pitifully decieved. It's a pretty neat video of the fallen angel or demon or whatever it is. I really don't know if it's real though.

I have met some demons. they hate Jesus as much as you do. the difference between them and you though, is that they know he is for real whereas you think they are gods.

pitifully decieved.

What i really cannot figure out is how people like you present such knowledgeable opinions about God and Jesus when you have never sought them never met them and even think they don't exist. From the opposite perspective, of someone who does know that God is real, that Jesus is the son of God... your hateful ramblings are nothing but an imaginary device you use to console yourself.

Just like evolution.

Lots of Christians have met your so-called gods Pwcca, they are demons. If you want your opinion to matter you should actually take the time to sincerely investigate the truth about God and Jesus rather than make stuff up to make yourself feel good. You and every person here arguing for evolution has strong opinions on God and jesus, but not a single one of you has sincerely explored the possibilty that God is real, that Jesus is real. your opinions are based on absolutely nothing, and yet you expect Christians to take the time to explore your views.. No Pwcca, it's your turn. You are lacking an enormous amount of information.... these discussions are highly biased on that lack of information and will go nowhere endlessly as a result.

We are talking about creation here, lets stick to that. How do you jump to animals and species without life starting someplace first? how did life start Pwcca? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did aliens drop off hens and roosters from outer space?

Did you take some time to try to discover if God is real today or did you only look in the evolution section of the internet again?

Hello Pwcca, thanks for your comments here and elsewhere.

Seeing as Russ seems to be reluctantly otherwise occupied and SoSick has run through her usual stable of particular insights on reality, I thought I'd pick up where we left off.

Actually we are talking about how we get to the point where evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - operates. To get there by purely natural means we need to get life out of non-life, and to frame this properly we need to ask these questions:

(1) what do you start with?

(2) what do you end with?

(3) how do we get from (1) to (2)?

What we start with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
What we start with is the environment and chemicals that were available, as best we can tell. This now includes many amino acids that are commonly found in space. We start with a soup of complex pre-organic chemicals.

What we end with

We end with life, but it only needs to be the most primitive simplest form of life possible. This gets to the question of "what is life" - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
When we look at what an organism is we get:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisms
You will notice that they do not necessarily require a cell to qualify as life, and that the basic criteria are:

• growth through metabolism,
• reproduction,
• adaptation to environment,
• reacting to stimuli, and
• maintenance as a stable whole.

Another way you could phrase it is that "LIFE" is something that is capable of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

That may be just a self-replicating molecule, capable of attracting components from which to metabolise (gain energy) and to manufacture replicas (reproduction).

Enjoy.

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Thanks so much for your prompt reply Russ. Insightful and to the point as usual.

All you have done is repeated an already invalidated opinion based on a less than complete understanding of the science and our understanding of the universe.

Rocks will never turn into complex molecules, because their atoms are locked in the rock matrix. However rocks are not the only source of chemicals, molecules and this is why your straw man argument fails.

You could read what the scientist say instead of what creationists say scientists say. You know go to primary sources of information.

You could also read the reply above.

Then you could reply here and we could discuss the issue.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

PWCCA Said...


Well, for starters, here's a quote by LindaLou:

[color:"magenta"]"I think it is possible and even plausible that organic chemicals could start to replicate"[/color]

—Post # 246200

No small feat, I would add, and a vague and timid reference to abiogenesis, no doubt (read the context).

When I use the phrase "rocks turn into men" or something similar, I am simply echoing the essence of abiogenesis extended by evolution. Yes, both myths requires water, and we all know that, but what I like to do is take all of the fluff out of the way so the common person can understand what a person is really trying to say.

Abiogenesis is the idea that minerals mixed with water and began to become vastly more complex—and live. The natural evolutionary extension to this belief is that these organisms became human over time.

I condense this mythical belief system into a common man's language by saying essentially the same thing, namely, "rocks turn into men". Perhaps I could be more accurate and say, "rocks and water turn into men", but I'm quite sure that would not make evolution disciples any happier. To do that, I would have to adorn this story with some big words in order to provide an aura of integrity and intelligence, only then would it "feel" comfortable.

Simply stated, when you remove all the adorning words that add an aura of intelligence to this unobserved faith, it then becomes clear how ridiculous the story really is.

So the answer to your question is this:

I do it to get to the truth behind the facade of intelligence.

Don't forget, this abiogenesis/evolution myth is also currently taught in textbooks, television, mass media, classrooms, and museums. It is a fallacy that is now suffering an attempted correction by those retreating to myths that are somewhat less ridiculous—but ridiculous still.

You said...

[color:"magenta"]"I don't know of a single evolutionist who believes this..."[/color]

If I did, I would have a hard time admitting it myself.

Funny though. They all used to. Why do you think they changed their minds?

Pssst: The masses are catching on.

Please provide a quote from a prominent evolutionist biologist, past or present, that says "rocks turn into men".

Are you saying that minerals mixed with water cannot become more complex than the elements themselves?

That's good to know. Now I can put my cast iron pot in water and the Fe (iron) in it won't turn into Fe2O3 (rust).

Putting Na (sodium) in water won't result in NaOH (sodium hydroxide) either.

I guess all that chemistry I took in college isn't worth the paper it's printed on. When do you plan on presenting your findings to the Nobel committee and collect your million dollars?

It's also interesting that you don't believe your digestive tract works. How do you nourish yourself, sunlight? How do you turn that into energy to move about since the oxygen you breathe in can't become more complex CO2 in the presence of water in your cells in order to remove the carbon from the ATP and release energy?

What reality are you living in again?

LinearAQ,

I have read all of your 20 posts and have come to the conclusion that you are trolling.

You have contributed no useful content to this system, instead, you are continually baiting people into empty, emotionally-charged conversations.

This is your first and last warning.


As a courtesy, I will inform you that mercury toxicity is often accompanied by aggressive, provocative, angry, emotionalistic behavior. You have stated that you have not been affected by your amalgam fillings while exhibiting classic mercury-like behavior.

For those who have an ear.

Warning understood.

I admit that I did use baiting language toward you. However, I didn't realize you had been so busy that you couldn't reply to my questions. My apologies in this case.

The tactic used in the other thread was a response to avoidance tactics used by SoSick against me.

I have noted that SoSick exhibits abusive behavior when dealing with those who question her fact statements which she fails to provide any support for. Yet, you have not warned her in any thread that I have seen her do that. Is this because you have already diagnosed her and feel there is nothing you can do?

I guess I should be more "Christian" and turn the other cheek when abused in such a manner.

You state that I question in empty emotionally charged subjects. What areas should I avoid questioning in, so that I don't exacerbate the problem? Is the fact that angels appear in photos an empty subject to you? What about making English the official language of the US? Do you consider that an empty subject? The Biblical Flood is an empty subject also?

Frankly, I am at a bit of a loss as to how I can express my views or question others on their views without incurring a sanction from you.

Refusing to argue with you or anyone else is hardly an avoidance tactic LinearAq.

Refusing to accept bull as fact or beat around the bush to make you feel good is not abusive behavior either.

Some of us have better things to do than argue endlessly all day.


have a nice day.

Russ, I feel the need to speak up here. I am acquainted with LinearAQ and I can tell you for a fact that he is not a troll. He is a visitor from the EvC forum where Percy and RAZD came from. I am not inviting them here; I don't even belong to that forum anymore. But some of them still find their way here. LinearAQ is very well qualified to talk about science and evolution.

I also have to say I see a double standard. His comments were inflamatory, which he has acknowledged, but they don't hold a candle to some of the infantile insults I've had from SoSick time after time after time. May I ask why she's allowed to do this when others are reprimanded?

Let me take the opportunity to educate you Linda...

read the threads.. notice that i have never said anything not nice to you unless prompted by your own infantile insults. read the threads Linda.

You get what you pay for, it's a pretty simple and common method of exchange.

you chose to use me, and a few others, to lash out aganist Christians... you incessantly make insulting remarks about my statements... most of which you do not even begin to come close to comprehending... you literally almost curse us for claiming to 'have divine knowledge'... gee Linda, what do expect?

I was always nice to you Linda, you have started this over and over and again. You started it way back when you first showed up... in a thread started by tracy about God... and you have never relented.

you owe many people here an apology linda, for being so very arrogant and hateful.

Russ knows why you want to shut me up Linda. Bex knows, Skieslimit knows, Laura knows... we all know...

it's the testimony Linda... you cannot stand the idea that God really exists. That God is love. that Jesus died for our sins, and that people today actually know him, etc etc etc

To what extent will you go to shut me up Linda? If you leave here today, my testimony continues... if you stay it continues... there is nothing you can do and your words are meaningles to me,, all your insults meaningless... i know that my words are true no matter how many times you call them stupid or lies or whatever. others know too btw and that is your biggest problem.

Would you like for me to pray for God to look in upon you and cause this distress to cease?

Peace Linda.

You asked me three or four times about hogs in Nebraska and insinuated that I hold a worthless degree from an agricultural college. You know very little about me.

You posted pictures of Bin Laden spitting my head out.

I could come up with many other quotes and citations of what I was referring to as infantile insults that you are blatantly allowed to dish out to me and others here with no reprimands.

Just thought I ought to refresh your memory as you seem to have forgotten. Find one, just one place, where I have made some kind of personal attack on you which justified this sort of "retaliation." I'm sorry if I say things that may offend your religious beliefs but they are said in the spirit of debate here. Furthermore, if you don't like something I have said, surely it is best to take the moral high ground and point out in grown-up fashion where I am wrong. You seem to think it's justified instead to insult people, and you are allowed to do it here to your heart's content.

And this isn't an insult?

Stop moralising to me and look in the mirror. I'm going to stop writing before I lose all patience.

Linda Lou,

You have a long history of deceitfully defaming my character and the characters of others. Your post about me (above) is only one in a continuing series of posts by you that make statements that are completely untrue. These posts are defamatory, inflammatory, and serve no apparent purpose than to satiate your hatred for the things I believe and have researched for decades.

Furthermore, your statements about LinearAQ are untrue as well.

For example, you said they are not a troll. You are wrong.

A person is defined by their actions, and this person was trolling, therefore, by definition, they are a troll.

You also stated that LinearAQ is qualified to speak about science and evolution. I would then ask: Why haven't they? Why, instead, are they simply (admittedly) baiting debate and strife with hollow accusations?

Finally, to answer your accusations about SoSick.

You said that these inflammatory remarks by LinearAQ don't hold a candle to the insults you've received from SoSick. That's irrelevant because LinearAQ's remarks were made in the context of trolling.

SoSick and You have willfully engaged in exchanging insults for a long time. But, SoSick and You have also contributed useful content to the system.

LinearAQ has not, with 1 possible exception (1 post out of their first 20, which is not a good record).

When deciding to warn someone of an impending ban, I actually look for reasons to allow them to remain on the forum. I look for an "excuse" by searching for some thread of sincerity or good intent in their posts (I read all 20 of LinearAQ's posts). LinearAQ has none (with the possible exception of 1, but even that somewhat appears to be a veiled attempt at trolling).

When I considered these facts, I saw a new person on this forum with 19 posts of trolling—and horrible trolling at that, complete with insults, insinuations, and degrading remarks. Only 1 post of 19 had any possible noble attempt at communication, although that is debatable.

When 19 out of 20 of your firsts posts are acts of trolling, it would be foolish to expect anything different in the future. For this reason, I gave them a final warning. Is 19 chances not enough?

In my long history of debate with you, it is clear to me and those I know who have looked on that you twist truth and what other people say—sometimes deliberately, sometimes (probably) self-deceptively—and hurt people in the process. It would be different if you backed up your claims with facts, which you sometimes do, but when you get angry at someone, it's clear to me that you throw out accusations and defamatory remarks off the top of your head. These accusations are without merit and at your own whim.

I have been more than patient with you delivering this type of behavior in the past, but you continue to abuse the freedom you have been given.

Finally, a few direct responses to your baseless remarks:


(1) Then why does he troll?

(2) What method is it that you use to arrive at your "facts"?


Yes, this is the same forum that you solicited people for help asking them to come to this forum.

Amazingly, you did this immediately after a Christian on this forum said that they had read through the debate posts on this forum and it had strengthened their faith.

This is yet another act of animosity you have exhibited toward Christianity, a belief system that you admittedly know nothing about.

Who is making emotionally-based, hatred-filled judgments here while accusing others of doing the same?


A while ago you admitted that you did.


I already addressed this above.



Who initiated these comments Linda—that is—who made the initial insulting remarks?


(1) Hateful: as I've explained, you have been hateful towards the Bible without knowing much of anything about it; very hateful.

(2) Arrogant:

Definition: making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

I personally have accused you of being amazingly assuming, because—well—you have been.

Your hatred and countless assumptions about my belief system—something you know nothing about—have been derogatory and demeaning without merit.

In all honesty, your actions fit the definition of arrogance (from dictionary.com).

Has SoSick been the same way to you?

Yes, but not without your provocation, and this point I wrote hours ago (before SoSick said the same thing) but my Internet service went down so I was unable to post it at that time.

Finally, I have continually told you in past posts that I—as a human being that has researched the things I believe in—would prefer that you just say "hmmm, that's interesting", or "gee, I don't know anything about that" when you are confronted with Biblical facts that you know nothing about. Instead, conversations with you have degraded into character-assassination-fests that you initiate, and that, without merit (calling Dr. Hovind a liar, for example).

I am fair and have continued to be fair, so much so that I have allowed you to go this far in your merit-less accusations, even against me. However, your continual false accusations and truth twisting need to stop (example below).



"A few residents of this forum honestly think they are in God's good books and that he gives them special favours and knowledge."

God does indeed give Christians special favors and knowledge. I can attest to this because I have experienced it myself.

If you would be willing to humbly and sincerely ask Him, you may just experience what I, and many of my fellow Christians, have. I sincerely hope you do one day.

"Many here are ill, we come here to support each other, but according to these same people we've brought it on ourselves because we are sinners."

What you have claimed above about my belief system (naming me in the process) is blatantly false. I have never said, nor do I believe, that people have mercury toxicity because they are sinners.

I do believe that some people become sick because they pierce their conscience (there's strong scientific evidence supporting this), and even you have made statements alluding to the same.

The statements you made above are a perfect example of the method you use whereby you take statements I made in different contexts and glue them together to support a false conclusion for your own purposes of defaming me. Again, you have a long history of exactly this kind of manipulating information to serve a false and slanderous conclusion.

"Bad things only happen to people because they've done something against God to deserve it. Believe me, I've had this conversation myself and that's what I've heard."

I have never said that, nor do I believe it.

You explicitly said that I believe this, so please point me to the post where I made this statement.

What I DO believe is that bad things happen to good people (even Christians) because there are evil people in the world who harm others for their own benefit. These people conspire together (in what is called a "conspiracy") to defraud others of health, money, liberty, and a host of other valuable things.

"I had two people in mind, no more: SoSick and Russ, as Pwcca rightly guessed (spot on, and thanks for digging out the quotes)."

I do not see any "quotes" here Linda. Although this is not surprising. You have often insinuated the truth and reliability of information that does not exist.

Please provide a post number to support these alleged "quotes".

"Both claim they have a special connection with God and that he reveals special things to them."

Again, God will have a personal relationship with whomever He pleases. You really should try it.

"They have claimed that bad things happen because people deserve them; they apparently have done something against God. We had this conversation a few months ago "

I have neither stated this, nor do I believe it.

Please provide a post number.


Linda, if you want to remain a member in good standing on this forum you need to provide post numbers to support your accusations about me.

Russ, it looks like I have made an error in saying that you believe that bad things happen to people because they deserve them. This must be SoSick's jurisdiction alone. Indeed in looking over your posts here I have not seen any evidence of this belief from you and I am sorry to have made a false accusation there. I have to admit I do have a memory of you, I and Pwcca having a conversation where you had said that the people in Africa are suffering because they are not Christian. I have been unable to find the post where this was said and I'm not sure where I might have gone wrong, but he and I both do remember the conversation. If I cannot find it I will not allude to it again. What I've found so far is claims from you that America became powerful because, as you say, it was founded on Biblical law, and countries which aren't are headed for disaster.

As far as LinearAQ, we can see whether he tames his language a bit. I think it comes out of frustration. I've seen it many times on EvC, where a creationist debates with biologists and archaeologists and refuses to listen to anything they say. You may think this is heroic, but to the people who have spent years of their life researching these things it can sometimes be incredibly frustrating. I'm not making apologies for him but he has actually posted some good challenging questions about the things people have said here. Would you please give me an example of what you mean by "strife and hollow accusations"?

Can you find a quote from me where I am "willfully insulting" SoSick? Where I have made assumptions about her personal life or questioned her intelligence? Yet it's OK for her to post those sorts of things about me because she posts useful content elsewhere? If these are the rules here then it negates most of what you have said to me because since I post useful things too, I can freely insult forum residents in a similar way. I think you'll find that I don't, and I wouldn't, because I don't believe that is how an adult on a forum should behave.

Much of the rest of the content of your post addresses your personal religious standpoint and how you and others here do not like it being questioned. From this point of view, anyone who questions creationism and its proponents (i.e. "Dr." Hovind) is full of hate and deceit. For example:


The truth in this very statement is twisted. I do not have a personal attack agenda here. I am not trying to strip people of their Christian faith. I am not the devil incarnate. I have been challenging statements here about creationism because I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for this model over evolution. I know many Christians who are also evolutionists. If an entire faith is based on creationism and the literal truth of the Bible, however, then I can understand why it must be upsetting to have any of those things questioned.

As long as this particular forum is here, though, this is what's going to happen. It does say, after all, "What do you think?" If it upsets you that people are posting points of view that differ from yours then why not, as I have suggested before, make this your Creationists Corner and ensure that the rest of us are not allowed to talk here?

You tell me I have spoken hateful worse about the Bible. I have said that it contains truth and wisdom. I do not happen to take the book literally and I do not choose to follow it as my holy book. It was written by men thousands of years ago and reflects their customs and laws. If you consider this point of view to be hateful then I'm sorry you feel that way -- but you must recognise that most other people in the world think this too, including most non-Christians.


I made no insults. I was examining and questioning statements SoSick had made in the debate about creationism. It's post 246720. Are you telling me, as someone who is familiar with debate tactics, that it's OK to respond to questions by dodging the issue and instead resorting to what's been called here "character assassination?" My questions were about woolly mammoths, flying reptiles, limestone, etc. The response I got was "you are stupid . . . you know nothing" etc. I can understand it as a one-off, when no other ideas of how to respond to my post sprang to mind, but it wasn't a one-off. I have never belonged to another forum where it was OK to posts these kinds of comments to other members.


So there is no dispute about that particular comment I made at least.

Finally, you said:


I could say exactly the same thing about all the creationist claims here. I could accuse all the resident creationists of twisting facts and "hatefully" rejecting the science that I and others have presented. You don't like what I said about Hovind. Maybe I feel the same about the quote-mines that have been taken out of context from respected scientists such as Eldrege and Gould, not to mention all the research that has been cited here and ignored or brushed off as "lies".

Like I said, if you don't like the debate, why not change the format and put it to an end. Otherwise you will continue to hear from people who dare to question creationist beliefs.

I have an urge to compliment you, Russ, on your patience in sticking to this point. If only one span is missing from evolutionism's bridge, it cannot be used to cross the waters of reality. I noticed this quite a while ago, but I don't have the restraint to focus on any single lie in the pile.

Your brief statement's no straw man, and neither can it be truthfully classified as inaccurate. The problem is that it's too easy to understand, when you phrase it that way.

Abiogenesis is handily ruled out on grounds of both physical and informational entropy. It postulates the abolition of Biogenetic Law and the revival of Spontaneous Generation (its formerly-used synonym). And although it's not admitted, the burden of proof lies entirely on it's advocates.

The best scientific knowledge available indicates that life doesn't come from non-life. There's nigh on unanimity on this point. Along come some fellows who claim that in their imaginary past, this wouldn't be the case. The burden of proof is exclusively their own. But they haven't come close to proving their case - they've just accumulated a longer laundry list of reasons it can't be so. Have they imagined new stories to maintain their faith? Sure, dozens! But that's not evidence.

Hello CID,

I feel I need to clarify a few things here. Firstly, evolution does not hinge on the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution describes what happened to life after it had begun. There is much less evidence for abiogenesis, but there is still a good deal -- enough to make it an acceptable idea.

Have you read RAZD's posts here? He said above,


This is not akin to spontaneous generation, which is a past idea -- now universally discredited -- that organisms appear out of nowhere. You will not find any serious scientists who claim this to be the case.

You said:


On the contrary, you will find many people, including the majority of scientists, who take the theory of abiogenesis very seriously. We seem to keep discovering more steps between A and B, A being organic chemicals and B being self-replicating molecules. The gap between both continues to narrow. If you care to keep abreast of the latest news in this area you will discover this yourself.

I'm not saying I personally believe that abiogenesis is the perfect description of how life arose. I find creationism far more implausible however. No one here has so far been able to point me to any actual evidence for it.

BTW can I also ask you to refrain from using terms such as "evolutionism," which implies that evolution is a faith or religion. It is a way of describing how the world works. You can be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and still accept evolution as a working model. It boils down to there being truckloads more evidence for evolution than there is for a Biblical creation and a young earth.

LindaLou,

Your false accusations and erroneous generalizations about Russ' Christian beliefs and character have only served to undermine your own credibility and place you in the precarious position of appearing a liar.

You didn't just say that he believed bad things happen to people because they deserve them...

Your original accusation also included a blatant reference to his Christian beliefs:



Then in your next post you boldy stated:




Well LindaLou, you couldn't have been more wrong!

I am shocked at how you post these slanderous, false accusations and then arrogantly conclude them to be as "simple as that.

You admit that you can't find any evidence to support the false accusations you made about Russ.

Yet, in your very next breath you attack him again with the same disproven, false accusation by saying:



LindaLou, you admitted you found no proof that Russ ever made these statements.

You obviously cannot be trusted to accurately or truthfully state what Russ says or believes. Apparently you didn't bother to "check your sources" BEFORE you made your wild accusations.

But you know you have a memory of Russ saying these things?

Enough already. You need to stop these baseless, deceitful accusations.

Yet, I doubt that you will, because by your own actions you have established a pattern of behavior of personally attacking Russ and Christians/Christianity in general. (And as for your vicious attacks against Hovind, they require their own post, which I'll address at another time).

You have proven yourself to be someone who has been quick to accuse, attack and slander without regard for the truth or the consequences of your actions. A quick review of just a few of your posts is quite telling (I have bolded certain statements to emphasize my point):







The last post above was where you, once again, accused Russ of something that wasn't true. You accused him of deliberately preventing anyone from making new posts, when in actuality, the problem was simply a technical glitch that occurred when performing some upgrades to the forum.

Below, you accused Russ on multiple occasions of willfully deleting your post (simply because you couldn't find it). (Incidentally, RAZD found your post which was not deleted at all (#247555 - 12/12/07 10:01 PM).)








Had I more time, I would also address your debate tactics and how I have seen you craftily twist and take things out-of-context that Russ has said when arguing with him.

Suffice it to say that you clearly, without regard for the truth, put false words in his mouth. You have made statements of "facts" about what he has said that are simply untrue.

LindaLou, if you have proven that we can't believe what you say about Russ or the things he has said, how can we believe what you say about evolution?


False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.
Plato (427 BC - 347 BC), Dialogues, Phaedo

Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, October 26, 1939

(Backbone of creationist's beliefs thread. Post #252082)



Here is what sosick really said in regards to being accused of having "divine knowledge"
(backbone of creationist's belief thread. Post #244784)

.

Certainly you have nothing to back up your claim of anybody stating that bad things happen to people because they deserve it. Another attempt at blackening their characters and no doubt Christianity, though you claim otherwise. Here is yet another previous attempt.

Taken from the abortion/evolution thread. (#250605)



No religions I know of, Catholicism included, preaches this. Show me where in the Catholic Catechism, or the bible where it tells you that? Who are the preacher/evangelists that have said this? And you say you've read the bible? Seems to me that misrepresentation/manipulation is part of your tactic. You'll never mention the Christian organisations around the world daily who are helping the "so-called pieces of dirt or refuge", because they are trying to imitate Christ. You also have indicated you believe or are open to reincarnation? Do you realise that the very accusations you've made against some of the Chrsitians on here actually apply to reincarnation? Do you realise that suffering and misfortune are taken as righting the wrongs you did in a previous life? That people deserve what they get? Are you also aware that Mother Teresa and her nuns picked the sick and starving and dying off the streets and fed and nursed them because these poor sods (reguge of society) own people decided through reincarnation that they were only getting what they deserved! Start getting the accusations accurate Linda. Suffering and misfortune are not always a punishment from God, but often a result of our own sins (be it sexual promiscuity or other - e.g. aids) or the result of other people's sins (again e.g. aids etc). The innocent often suffer what they clearly do not deserve (only have to look at Christ on the cross). And even if the person is guilty? Christianty preaches that you do not judge, but rather show the person the right way. If they wish to spit venom, shake the dust from your feet Christ says and move on. Stop misrepresenting it for your own personal agenda.

Here is another quote that isn't just about hitting back at the person you're responding to, but slipping God in there and seemingly defaming Him also:



Quote mining: Each and everytime someone has been able to provide quotes that you have not wanted to see, (embarrassing and revealing quotes by evolutionists etc) you have tried to discredit this, referring to it "quote mining" and made it out to be irrevelant and an unfair practise. Yet you praise Pwcca in the top quote "I had two people in mind, no more: SoSick and Russ, as Pwcca rightly guessed (spot on, and thanks for digging out the quotes)."

Suddenly quote digging becomes relevant when you decide it is. But irrelevant when it's something that doesn't suit you.

Example of your "quote mine" putdowns.

"where did Cain find His Wife thread. Post #247401)



(where did cain find his wife thread. Post #247429)


And there's plenty more statements where that came from. I will hunt down the other post where you responded to one of Russ' posts by asking him to back it up with the quote! Yet when they're provided, you try to invalidate them. In fact, you can't really invalidate a quote because it's a statement, not a secondhand relation of a story as you've mostly given on here.

Here is an example of your provocative and sometimes downright insulting tones:
(Why are there no pro-evolution locked threads: #249126



(#249151)



Linda once again pre-judging Russ before knowing the reasons:


Linda complains about sosick insulting her yet here is how she describes Hovind:


(fundamentals thread #249035)



(from the "left-over turkey Turn into oil. post #246379)



later on the "leftover Turkey thread post #246782):


( Leftover Turkey, turn it into oil thread. Post #247384)




Riiight....well that being the case, then why do you accuse others of doing this? When clearly you've been far from angelic.

Continually criticising Russ' post techniques/information, as either flimsy or too much information for you to wade through. Even though the information has provided videos, links, websites, quotes, Russ' own personal comments from what he's picked up and learnt over the years, to which your posts have not even come close in my opinion. Russ has consistently and repeatedly passed on a wealth of information. Here is another example of the fact that you cannot be pleased.

(taken from Leftover Turkey thread, post #247315)


Then when links and websites are provided, here is the response:
(Backbone of Creationists beliefs thread. Post #244448)



Hypocrisy in action after ongoing character assassinations against Russ and ignoring much of the information provided in his posts:: (from Evolution and the Big Lie #247923 )



Again, another example of a complete contradiction in terms. Turn that around and you get closer to the truth <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.


(What exactly is abiogenesis thread. Post #252084)



In light of what I've read from you on these threads Linda, you're guilty of this very problem.

Because of your ongoing nit-pickings, I have wasted a lot of my time to prove to you that your own behaviour needs to be checked before lashing out or blaming sosick or Russ or whoever else that opposes your views and hits back when you become patronising or provocative/insulting.

If anybody is still blinded by your apparent near guiltlessness, I hope this will clear that up. Nobody is guilt free on here Linda, but when you make out that it's the few Christians on here that have said this or said that, or do this or do that, hoping to blacken characters and no doubt create more allies, then you need to be nailed yourself!

Laura,

I apologised for what I said about Russ regarding his beliefs and I said I would not allude to the subject again if I could not find the conversation I was remembering.

I also could not find a very long post that I had written in the summer. What assumption could I logically make? This forum is run by a creationist. I thought he must have deleted it. When the post was found, again I apologised, and gained some respect for Russ. You must realise that for much of the time I have been the only evolutionist talking here and from my point of view that often makes this a hostile environment. Why would I not conclude that my post had been deleted if I genuinely could not find it?

Speaking of a hostile environment, this comment:


was in response to the locked threads, which are there if you look -- a whole series of them. Try putting yourself in the other person's shoes. You belong to a forum where the residents are mostly evolutionists whose sole aim is to tell you how wrong you are. A few other creationists turn up to help you make your own points. Then the forum owner starts posting locked threads about evolution -- which you might have a lot to say about, but which you are banned from replying to.

I apologise for the emotion in the above statement and will try to keep a better lid on it in future (I am not very well and sometimes this is difficult). Why else, though, would those threads be locked? Presumably the answer is that Russ is tired of evolutionists criticising.

I make no apologies whatsoever about Hovind and I'm happy to tell anyone what an idiot and a fraud he is -- because it's the truth. And I've given evidence for that. He is not a member of this forum. Surely you must realise that most other evolutionists who have heard of him, think the same. He hasn't got any scientific credentials and he doesn't know what he's talking about. He thinks that the sun burns by combustion and I could give you his own quotes to that effect. That is the tip of the iceberg as far as his scientific ignorance is concerned.

Let's draw the line between debate like this which includes public figures like him -- we could equally be debating Darwin or Gould or whoever -- and personal remarks. I think some people here don't like what I am saying about creationism and its proponents, and that is being lumped together with other perceived insults.

I honestly was not intending to spend much more time here as it is, and haven't posted much recently. These sorts of debates do get heated at times and I'm not sure much good comes of it when both sides are entrenched. For my part I will make an extra effort to give Russ the benefit of the doubt and to refrain from making assumptions about his actions. Some of his beliefs are very offensive to me but no doubt he feels the same about me, and hopefully we can avoid focusing on that. I do appreciate the fact that the mercury forum is here and it is one of the best forums of its kind on the internet.

Forgot to add:

Linda has put down Kent hovind's qualifications, in an attempt to discredit his understanding and revealing of lies in the textbooks, then makes this statement in defense of her own lack of qualfications when challenged:

(Where did Cain find his wife thread. Post #247461)


Exactly Linda, which is what Kent Hovind has done and he's more qualified and experienced in this field than you are! He's also a fearless debator and is more than willing to debate more than one evolutionist at a time in front of an audience. Now, if he's so full of sh*t? Why is it so hard for them to debate him live? Why do they not make mince meat out of him in front of the audience live if he's got it all wrong? This is their chance to show him up right? There and then. Come on Linda, it's very easy for them to bash him behind his back on a website isn't it? But when it comes to invitations to live debates, suddenly they're very quiet. I've seen him debate by the way, he's as respectful as anybody else. He simply shows up the lies in the textbooks that were disproven years ago and asks why they are still there. If you want to talk about his insults, have a look sometimes at the way they address him also. The debates get heated, but are mostly respectful, which isn't easy in this area.

The invitation for live debates is always there. It's them that avoid it....yet one wonders why in the face of the apparent "Truck loads" of evolution proof that you keep stating is out there, that most of them avoid facing him down? They avoid live debates like the plague.

Damn, cut Linda some slack, folks. She's retracted some of her remarks and politely ammened them.

I haven't once heard SoSick retract her own statements, directly calling other posters a pig, an idiot, filth, etc -- and that's a lot more insulting than anything ANY other poster has said. Nor have I seen these remarks (remarks which would be deleted and/or reprimanded for on any other internet forum) commented on. Isn't it interesting that Linda opposes your side of the argment and therefore cannot make insults yet someone on the same side as you can use the worst names imaginable.

And, for the record, calling actual posters names is one thing, calling Hovind or other public figures names is entirely another. Let me take a wild guess here, you wouldn't get offended if I called Charles Darwin an idiot.

If abiogenesis weren't crucial, evolutionists would have no objection to ID. They do. It is. Although others are free behave as if this weren't so, I lack the motivation to do so myself.

One can break things down for purposes of discussion, and it's practiaclly a necessity in many circumstances. One can discuss "Natural Selection" as an element of evolutionism, and there isn't frequently any ruckus. I believe the desire to maintain good relations with "theological evolutionists" coupled with the overall weakness of the concept of abiogenesis provide sufficient motive for evolutionists to treat it as an external component of evolutionism.


So the first step is for the rock to evolve into 'soup'? I think you all should jump for joy to see something that can be verified included in the story.

I also note that you misdefine spontaneous generation. A correct definition would show that it's the same thing as the a-word. Life from non-life = life from non-life. New proposed mechanisms don't make it something different. Anyone can imagine any mechanism they like and all will be equally wrong.

Redefining the term "life" doesn't change things either. This is just a very obvious trick to sell bogus claims.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />Tack on the big bang (cosmic evolution) to the front of abiogenesis and your get your version of spontaneous generation anyhow. Just thought that was funny...


Perhaps I should have said "indicated". It was a toss-up. I intended to communicate that my statement was true in the past when the first attempts to revive spontaneous generation under the guise of "abiogenesis" were made, and it remains true in the present. You yourself disavow spontaneous generation. In context, I was speaking about the burden of proof. Do you think it's been met?

In light of the context, do the "majority of scientists" agree that the burden of proof has been met? Or do they perhaps choose to believe in abiogenesis due to a lack of godless alternatives? Maybe they see it as a very appealing thing, but they're holding out for more evidence.

You say new steps are being discovered between A and B. I agree. Each "new step" is an obstacle, and B isn't even life. Life's at Z! I hope you can understand that discovering more difficulties getting up to the second floor of a skyscraper does not count the same as making actual progress toward the roof. But wait - that's just what I already said: their discoveries have not been working in their favor.


I'm sorry if nobody's been able to find evidence you'll see and understand. You know, Newton said his thumb would do, but there are plenty of people who don't get it. And to some, conservation of energy + any matter at all = all the evidence one could ask for a creator. But others just don't understand this.


I appreciate your polite request, but I must deny it. The doctrines and teachings of evolutionists are properly referred to as "evolutionism". I didn't invent the English language - that's just how it works. There is no better alternative term available. If there were even an equal term, I'd carefully consider your request. Does "communism" imply all communists are religious; does "capitalism" imply all capitalists are? I think not.

On occasions when I have chosen to indicate that evolutionists are operating on faith or delusion, I've been known to use better terms than "evolutionism" to communicate this. I do maintain that faith, often including relatively "blind" faith is an essential component of the teachings and doctrines of evolutionists. Point me to a thread if you'd like to discuss this. I shan't start one as I see you've got your hands full and may not have time. Shoot, postpone the whole thing and send me a PM or email when it's convenient.

On the other side, I'm not the only Christian who does not consider learning the truth and obeying God to be a "religion". It's the best, most reasonable course of action, and has nothing to do with religious systems invented by men.

Pwcca, I didn't mean this to be a "mob attack" on Linda. I took a long time to type that out with the quotes and delayed the posting of it until later (I go off and online often when someone needs the phone, so I had it sitting on the screen for ages before I sent it). I had not even seen Laura's until I later scrolled up. Forgive me for that Linda, I was just trying to make a point and something that was already clearly made. Did not mean intentially to go compound the issue with a few repeated quotes in there as well.

My additon was in defense of Kent Hovind who receives an ongoing "mob attacks" by evolutionists on other websites. It's gone on for ages and still is. I've gone on and read them. I know what I believe about the man and no he isn't perfect, and oh yes he's gotten things wrong too. Haven't we all? but that does not discredit everything that he exposes by a long shot. Imperfect as "he" himself maybe, his revelations I believe, for the most part are necessary. Because many of us are in the dark over these things, unless someone points them out. Often people accept them without investigation.

Linda may not have used direct "name" calling to put a member of the forum down Pwcca, but she has used indirect putdowns, patronisations and accusations which has encouraged the very responses that she then complains about. That's the point that was being made here. No, I don't agree with name calling and admittedly she's not used that on any member of the forum. But she sure has used other ways and means to putdown. Who hasn't?

I wouldn't even bring any of this up if it wasn't for the fact there is a lot of nitpicking and magnifying, and fault finding towards the Christian/creation posters and anything they say or how they say it, and misinterpreting and deliberating on it and then quoting it out of context... and not really having all the facts straight at the sametime. It just finally erupted.

At any rate, I hope we can put this to rest and get one with the topics on here. It'll never be peaceful, it's a debate forum, so things will always get heated.

Cheers.

Read the ongoing descriptions already given linear, Russ has repeated this argument more than once. You will NEVER, I repeat NEVER, find an evolutionist breaking his/her argument down to stating this. Asking for an actual quote admission like this is obviously not going to be found. We need people, who are highly experienced with breaking down the complexity and terminology the evolutionist relies upon to make often quite ludicrous and unlikely claims seem credible and impressive. This is why the ex evolutionist is usually the best ones to do this. They know the tricks of the trade so to speak. The layperson hasn't got a hope in hell of seeing through the smoke screen unless they start studying themselves and hearing the other side. Ex evolutionists and creation scientists are well versed in this and are a great aid to helping us understand what is REALLY being said (in more simplified terms). Once someone comes to grips with the terminology, usually they're a force to be reckoned with when debating evolutionists, and can usually more than match them, so long as they understand their language and can then break it down.



Are you using this as a way of indirectly saying that we're a product of chance random processes...if so how does this prove that? If you mix two different substances together to produce a chemically changed substance, you've proven what? that one and one makes two? .....you needed two different substances to exist in the first place as is, with all original information in order to mix them and create something changed . How is this evolution? Did they evolve by themselves to become more complex?



Rust is a corrosive and destructive process from oxidation. We're all rusting as well in a sense. What you really should be saying, to compare the point of the evolution theory is leaving the cast iron pot out there, letting the natural elements get to it and perhaps, over billions of years, with enough time, chance and imagination, it'll turn into the Iron Giant.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />



If you're attempting to make out that chemistry and science somehow rely on the evolution theory to exist and survive, you're mistaken. There is always holes in any findings, any theory and even doctors in all their studies get these wrong too. Many dentists believe that amalgam is safe, do you think that they wasted their time in dental school because they've been taught a fallacy? Do you think it's ok to question things sometimes that you're being taught by the men in white? We're talking about a theory here, not an established fact, so evolution is up for question and is highly questionable at best. Moreso than learning almost any other subject, because you can apply most things you learn. Testable, observable, proveable.

If you look at anything in life, there is the tendency to wind down, deteriorate, rather than improve and evolve. There is nothing new under the sun, just theories which are put across by human beings who are far from infallible and certainly cannot test the origins or answers to the universe and never will. Unless of course they invent a time machine.....(hmm there's another creative word "invent"). Or maybe just hope that mankind will evolve the ability to go back in time....evolution is like that. It's so intelligent that it knows when to kick in and gain or lose anything it needs or doesn't need along the way. What a creative force it is. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> And what stage of the proceedings do these half evolved creatures achieve full reproduction if they're still evolving? How would they reproduce if they're things aren't fully in place? Or did it just happen so quickly that we couldn't see it? So how did it happen so quickly if it took billions of years to achieve?...oh ok it happened so slowly we couldn't observe it....what did they do then in the stages of evolution where they did not have fully functioning reproduction systems in order to produce after their own kind and keep things going? Did that mean that billions of years of evolution, they just had amazingly long lives and didn't die until their reproductive system was fully evolved so they could have offspring? The thing is nothing makes any sense if things are not complete, because in order for things to survive and continue, they must reproduce. If they are not evolved fully, they cannot continue and replicate. Even a cell must have the full information in order to replicate. Evolution is utter nonsense when you consider these things. You cannot reproduce with half evolved reproductive systems. There is NOTHING in this world that is not complex in and of itself. A seed is complex and contains all the ingredients for life IMMEDIATELY, there upon planting it and watering it, it simply grows. The ingredients for what it is are there immediately.

Why should we trust a product of chance random processes to tell us how the universe began? The universe is governed by laws itself. Was that all unpurposely "pre-programmed" (without direction or intent) in some kind of chance mechanisms/force, that just happened to have all the hallmarks of focus, purpose and intelligence so that life could begin and then be sustained somehow in unison so that it all could be possible in the first place, without actually failing or falling apart. All the ingredients for life, somehow existed already, requiring only a lot of time to produce the result we observe around us today. If that's not the biggest magic trick that ever existed? I don't know what is. No intelligence or imagination required, let chance take over. Because we're the result of such, therefore we should also reflect our beginnings also. It makes little sense that we are creative beings, if we ourselves originally were not created. Where did the word "creature" arise? It comes from the word "Creator". Design - designer. How can we possibly imagine and invent, when if we're not the result of such? How do we evolve abilities if the beginnings of our origins holds no purpose? What is then the point of emotions and abilities, imaginations, if the origins are nothing more than chance forces? It makes no sense and the reason it makes no sense is because the theory is swiss cheese. Full of holes, (missing links) filled in by man's own created ideas (funny everything still requires thought and design to start with).

It appears that you believe the geologists, physicists and biologists are all in a type of conspiracy to defraud the people of the Earth. This is not the thread to debate that idea, but I just wondered if that is what you believe.

"Rocks to Men" may actually be an extremely concise way of stating the abiogenesis-evolution process, but it is also misleading and meant to be so. It is a means to take a difficult to understand process and make it seem ridiculous. It is also an ad homonym insinuation that biologists are either stupid or liars. That is why I object to that phraseology. It doesn't debate the topic...it attempts to obscure it.

I agree that the substances have to exist in the first place. Additionally, the properties ("laws") by which they combine also have to exist. Those properties are what makes the possibility of abiogenesis decidedly non-random. Chemical combinations happen because that is the way the universe is. If you believe that those properties and laws were laid down by a Creator, I cannot refute that and do not attempt to do so. However, God putting those properties in place and creating all matter and energy, does not refute evolution or abiogenesis. It just means that God set things up so life would occur.

I like your sense of humor. Obviously, no one says that a frying pan will become alive. However, you have iron in your blood so iron is a part of life.

Quite the opposite....abiogenesis, evolution and your remaining alive depend on the properties of the chemicals that make up this world. Chemistry and science explore and provide understanding of those properties but the properties themselves exist whether we define them or not. That is what God, if you will, decided to do at the beginning.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should question the established "truths". However, skepticism without investigation doesn't provide solutions or improvement. In the case of amalgams, for example, I'll bet you can provide references to studies done that show mercury toxicity increases in a group of people with amalgams compared to a lack of mercury toxicity increase in a control group without amalgams. I could then read the study, look over the testing protocols and see for myself that amalgams are a hazard. Opponents to evolution don't seem to do any testing or provide evidence in support of their own theories or credible evidence that refutes any part of the theory of evolution. I don't understand why, but typically their "evidence" is poorly documented and their "proof" is really amorphous conjecture that, when looked at closely, is their own incredulity.

The Theory of Evolution is a means of explaining the mechanisms of the changes that caused the diversity of life that we see on Earth today. Part of that theory is the Theory of Common Descent. Populations of organisms evolving has occurred and is occurring today.
Similarly, the Theory of Gravitational Attraction, attempts to explain the mechanisms of masses attraction to each other. Gravity exists whether the theory is correct or not. Evolution occurred whether the theory of how it happened is correct or not.

Assuming the theory of relativity is something you accept, how is that testable, observable and provable by your definition of those terms? What about predictability? If I can take 2 chemicals and predict how much of a third chemical will result from combining them, would that also be strong evidence of a theory (call it the theory of chemical combining) being accurate? That is, assuming I made a correct prediction.

Another joke, and a reference to Ecclesiastes. Solomon had a way with ideas.

Why do you think we cannot test origins? You may not know this but predictions have been made using the Theory of Evolution and they have been shown to be correct in further investigation.

I believe you are saying that abiogenesis and evolution require that there be no God. Why do you think these things must exclude God? Do you think the Theory of Gravitational Attraction excludes God? He is not mentioned in it. The mechanisms don't seem to require Him. Why are you not opposed to that theory?
What about the Germ Theory of Disease? It doesn't mention God or demons. Doesn't this directly contradict the Bible? I may be wrong, so I will do some research. However, if the Bible says that disease is the result of spiritual warfare, why aren't you opposed to the Germ Theory of Disease?

I may be a bit out of touch with your (Hovind's?) pronouncements so I hope you will pardon the question. What are the defining characteristics of a missing link?

I have typically been "scrolling on by" concerning some of the posts in this section lately. I quite literally haven't had the stomach for it. I do want to say a few things today though.

Linda, the very people who's beliefs for which you admittedly hold extreme high disdain (i.e., "the Christians" as you have referred to us), are the very people you are quick to approach for help, information and advice. While you are hovering in the Creation and Evolution section of the Forum, sometimes debating, other times deceptively attacking the members of the Forum in one form or another, you are simultaneously approaching those that you disdain for help in another section of the Forum.

I don't think anyone here was concerned one way or the other about your personal religious beliefs, Linda, when you arrived here and first posted an Introduction post. In fact, it is YOU who have made it the issue.

I have witnessed the very people who's beliefs you disdain actually respond to your posts in efforts to share information and sincerely help. During the process they have not attempted to change your religious or non-religious convictions. They have not responded to you in the pejorative.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I see no real evidence that the actively contributing members of this Forum are here to tell anybody how wrong they are about their faith. They are here because they are gathering and sharing information. Many of them are here because they are ill. Some are very ill indeed. Some individuals are quite literally unable to care for themselves or even raise themselves from the bed for long periods of time. Some of the individuals are more incapacitated from illness then you, Linda. They are not here to "tell you how wrong you are." They are here trying to get well.

You have said in the past "there are a lot of Christians here." If this fact is so abhorrent to you, Linda, then why do you continue to return and post here?

And while you slander and assassinate the fine character of the Forum owner here, you continue to take advantage of his property and the information contained therein. He owns this place. He created it. And he pays the bill for it. Furthermore, I feel as though you are taking advantage of alot of good-hearted people here who are miserably ill and desparately trying to regain health.

Hi Bex,

I'll try to keep this brief, since like you I'd just like to get on with discussing the ideas that this forum was presumably created for. And as you say, some of your comments have been addressed by me in other posts.

One of my comments you allude to needs to be seen in its proper context. I was firmly disagreeing with something SoSick said. She said in post 250608, in "Evolution: The Missing Link of Abortion" (which in itself is rather a dubious idea to have to quote):


She then added the bit about God not caring about Ferraris, which I actually don't object to. I said in reply to this:


I hope you can see that I was being sarcastic. I am not actually an atheist. I believe in the divine in my own way. I was expressing the view that the way we act toward each other, and the things we achieve in life -- not materialistic goals but others -- matter very much. And that someone who thinks they are holy because they go to church and pray, though they may hypocritically be doing every nasty thing under the sun while outside of church, is not as in touch with the divine as they may like to believe.

I do not believe this is an insult to Christians. In fact I daresay you could hear a priest or minister saying this in church, urging people to act out their faith in their lives.


This is what I genuinely experienced as a Catholic growing up. Some people half-jokingly call it the "Catholic guilt complex," though I have heard members of other sects express the philosophy that we are nothing in God's eyes but miserable sinners. If you do not believe this then in my opinion it's healthy for you. I know that not all Christians think this way but it was what I heard after going to church every Sunday for years. Do you have that much experience of being a Catholic? Is it honestly hard to accept that I am faithfully representing what happened to me?


Bex, I've also made the point to Russ several times over that entire websites and links do not constitute proof. I do not go to the trouble of explaining in detail -- for example, the structure of the eye -- and be told in reply "look up this link." In a debate you provide evidence in your own words, showing that you understand it, can select it appopriately, and summarise it. This is why long quotes pasted from other websites don't count as evidence either.

Bex it took me an hour to find this but I knew I remembered it and for sure I wasn't going to say I couldn't find it. You said:


In post 241583 of "Does God Exist?" in the mercury forum, SoSick said:


I replied:


She said:


I said:


She said:


I said:


She did not reply to this.

Did she say outright that bad things happen to people because they are not in God's good books? No, it's true she didn't.

Does the sort of logic she is following in these statements imply this? Yes I believe it does. She could have pursued this point with me but chose not to.

Finally, your points about Hovind. Please prove that he knows more about science than me. I keep asking people here to present evidence of his expertise but usually as a reply Russ directs me to his website, or a long video which I will not watch. I want to see specific evidence here that he actually does know what he's talking about.

And about public debates -- surely you realise that they are exercises in public speaking. While Hovind is a scientific ignoramus, I have to admit that he is a master of rhetoric. However, as we all know from salesmen, the gift of gab does not guarantee truth.

This really is getting tiresome. I will address your points SomedaySoon, and then I hope we can leave this off and get back to discussing the topic at hand.


I do not hold Christians in extremely high disdain, as I have repeatedly said here. This particular forum is designed for people to say what they think about creation and evolution. The chain of thinking here at the moment seems to be that if someone questions creationism, they are attacking Christianity and Christians. On the contrary, the point has been made numerous times by others as well as myself, that it is entirely possible to be a religious evolutionist. What's more, by saying as I do that there's plenty of evidence for evolution, I am not making a malicious attack against anyone. It is up to those here who think that evolution contradicts their faith, to decide what they will do about this. See RAZD's posts about cognitive dissonance.

I'm thankful for the assistance I've had on the mercury forum from people of all faiths and walks of life. Since I realised that this particular forum is here, I have limited what I say on the mercury forum to posts about holistic health. What I say here involves evolution and creationism, and this is going to involve religion. Those are all appropriate topics in their respective forums.

Anyone who feels aggrieved by what I've said here is free to choose not to talk to me. I would just ask them if they would consider what they are aggrieved about. See cognitive dissonance, above. RAZD gave several good definitions.


I have been told repeatedly to allow myself to be saved by Jesus. To repent. To open my mind to the Bible. I doubt if there is a single fundamentalist here who has never mentioned these things in their posts to me. This would seem to be an obvious point.

You also seem to be confusing the amalgam forum with this one. The purpose of this one is to discuss creation and evolution. Again, can you find a single creationist here who has not told me and the other evolutionists how wrong we are? If you thought we were right you wouldn't be calling yourself a creationist would you?


They are on the amalgam and general health forums trying to get well. If they are wise they will avoid this forum when they are very ill because debate is not good for the adrenals.


Like I said, this is getting old. Instead of listening to the science I have posted here, you and others are very eager to tell me how hate-filled and deceitful I am. That's an easy deflection from the topic. No one who knows me personally would describe me this way, but then I don't personally know any fundamentalists. They keep trying to get me to go to their church next door. I'd tell them I'm gay and they'd leave me alone, but they can see I'm married.


What, because I've posted information about evolution in a forum which is titled "Creation and Evolution: What do You Think?"

Explain how that is taking advantage. I am also a good-hearted person who is ill and trying to regain health, whether you believe that or not. The kind of debate that goes on in a forum like this, were people's ideologies are examined and questioned, usually doesn't tend to bring out the best in people.

Linda Lou,

Not confusing the Forums at all. As I said above, while you are posting in the creation/evolution forum and finding the beliefs there "offensive" (your word not mine, see your above post to Laura), you have simultaneously posted for help on other Forums (i.e., the amalgam Forum).

In other words, you are choosing to seek the advice of and share your personal stories with many of the very people you seem to find offensive. And before you go and try to say that you were only referring to Russ' beliefs as offensive, you might consider the fact that there are others here who hold the very same beliefs as Russ and they have shared that fact with you.

I'm not asking you to believe what I believe. The question I asked you was, why do you continue to return and post to a website whose Forums comprise a fair amount of the people whose views you find so offensive?

You made your views quite evident. Anyone who reads the Forums on this website knows what you think of people who have chosen to dedicate their faith to Christ.

No, here again what you're assuming is, that all their testing relies upon the theory of evolution. This is simply not true. However, if they are putting across a theory as a fact, without evidence to back up their claims, then yes they are dishonest and are falsely indoctrinating based on assumptions, rather than solid observable, scientific proof. Here is what happens when one who works in these fields does not comply with their theory.

Christian Biologist fired for creationist belifes: (this is just one example, but hardly isolated)

Christian biologist and zebrafish researcher Dr Nathaniel Abraham is suing the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in New England, USA, for $500,000, claiming that he was fired in 2004 for telling his supervisor he did not accept evolution as scientific fact because he believed the Bible presented a true account of human creation.

Religious discrimmination is obviously alive and well in the USA establishment, despite any protestations to the contrary. Dr Guillermo Gonzales, assistant professor of astronomy and physics at Iowa State University in 2007, fired for his belief in intelligent design, despite his publishing more than his colleagues.

Also note, the refusal of Scientific American to hire Forrest Mims III (The most widely read electronics author in the world) when they found out he was a creationist, despite admitting that his work was first rate (www.creationontheweb.com/mims).

The irrelevance of evolution to real science is shown by the fact that Dr Abraham was not dismissed until he had been working at Woods Hole for eight months and presumably would be there still if he had not mentioned his creation beliefs....

These are just some examples. People can arrive at their own ideas about conspiracy theories, but it sure doesn't look good.



Charles Darwin "It is mere rubbish to talk about the origin of life; one might as well talk about the origin of matter."

I believe in biogenesis (life coming from other similar life). Where is the evidence for abiogenesis? I know of no evidence that indicates an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. And fail to see how this can be tested, observed or proven? The idea that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is the most implausible hypothesis. Explain to me how DNA could have formed from any chemicals present? When the complexity of information contained in DNA in one human being is astounding and could simply not erupted spontaneously without intelligent intent. Just as the most advanced computer system requires a programmer, so too does the most complex structures in nature require designer. You can believe in spontaneous development of this if you wish, but it's not science.

Just because a scientist maybe an expert in what he can test and observe today, does not mean he's expert in origins or how things were in the land before intelligent observation and testing were possible. This is based on alot of assumptions and faith and sadly often passed across as science. To mix true testable science with theories, even if those theories are just assumptions, is a form of indoctrination without fact.

No matter how you try and explain what must have occured in the beginning, it requires faith and it depends on what you're willing to put your faith in. Whether things that happened with purpose and intelligence/life, or whether they happened by chance...and were they complete? Or did they gradually evolve and gain new information?


Yes I absolutely believe that all life, variation and laws arrived through intent, intellect and purpose. Whether I believe that God required billions of years of evolution in order for these things to reach fruition is something highly debatable. Again, we've not observed any signs throughout history of animals and human beings being any different than what they are today. More blind assumptions on our past based on pre-conceived beliefs.


Yes, iron is part of life.....I don't think i've disputed that. And what happens when we don't get enough of the right elements? (including iron) We go down hill. I don't see how life can start or be sustained without all the right elements already in place in order to nurture that life.

I mentioned before that the reproductive system could not be half finished and continue to produce life. The complexity of the reproductive system is what is necessary for life to take place cannot possibly have occured without fully functioning organs in place. Even now, people can have trouble conceiving, though they have all the equipment. Things can still go wrong. How on earth would half evolved creatures have brought forth after their own kind during their evolution?. All these things must be in place and working so that life can beget life. Billions of years of evolution? This makes no sense in light that all life dies eventually, unless we keep reproducing offspring to keep it going.....Even if you go down to the tiniest miscroscopic forms of life, they ALL have complexity. You tell me something that does not? Then give me an example of its evolution/reproduction. That is started off without full information, yet new information was somehow added as time wore on..... You cannot possibly evolve gradually into a complex being, if the complexity was not there from the beginning to allow for continuation of a species.

These things cannot be compared with amalgam toxicity testing. Amalgams exist today, we can observe and test. Even then, there are arguments over accuracy in testing and many things can come into it. Low mercury levels do not always equal lack of poisoning. Yet some doctors believe it does. There are many different reasons for test results too and alot of contradiction. Now if there are contadictions in testing a solid existing material and its' effects today? How then can you possibly test the past?

Actually, the burden of proof lies on the evolutionist who is teaching their theories as fact in the science room. By your statement above, you obviously feel like Linda, who uses the term "Truck loads" of evidence.....then why don't we see this? So far I've heard nothing but assumptions and animated pictures without any solid proof. See if evolution was scientific, it would not be debatable. There should be easy observations to see this in action or in the past at least, without the evolutionists scrabbling for a missing link. Evolution should be obvious and speak for itself time and time and time again. All arguments would be put to sleep very quickly.

The evidence will be forced to fit around their belief system, rather than the other way around. There are ex-evolutionists who seem to feel that the evidence itself was what drove them to creation/design. Instead of having their belief confirmed by evidences, they found it being challenged and even slowly deroded. Investigation is what drove them to design....

Retired evoluyionist chemistry professor Dr Homer Jacobson, now aged 84, looked himself up in google to see what use was being made of articles he had written in his career. To his horror, he found that creationists have been quoting his 1955 paper entitled "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life" published in American Scientist (45 (1):12 ff, January 1955). as proof that life could not have emerged on Earth without divine intervention. So after 52 years, Dr Jacobson has written to the American Scientist journal, retracting the offending statements. In this letter he says that one passage about the probability that a single moecular of a particular amino acid could spontaneously form from its components he now says "is completely inapplicable". He said his retraction was "because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists who have quoted me not merely out-of-context, but incorrect statements, to support their dubious viewpoint"

How could it be "out-of-context" or "irresponsible" for creationists to quote what Prof. Jacobson put forward as gospel truth for evolution in 1955? He now calls it "bad science". We must wonder how many of his own statements Darwin would now retract if he was alive today!

A candid admission from geologist Diana Northup from the University of New Mexico, USA: "Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists".

Evolutionists continue to cling to their ideas, regardless of lack of viable evidence one way or the other. You can try and bring God into your theory and say that it can still be compatible, but again your theory is still based on assumptions of what took place before recorded history....and therefore does not require anybody to believe in it, unless that is where they wish to put their faith. My faith is in the God of the bible, not the God of time, chance and billions of years of evolutionary processes.


I don't place evolution under the same catagory as credible science. Where are examples of organisms evolving and gaining new information along the way through evolution? Give me an example of simplicity becoming complexity over time. How can new information be added spontaneously unless the information is not already there in the first place?


Again, this is based on faith and assumptions rather than any viable or solid proof. And then you accuse creationionists of the same. when creationists simply believe what is already around them and what history has repeatedly shown to us....why do you evolutionists toy around with the land before time and fill in the gaps with your own dubious theories and call it science? Creationists don't require this at all. Variation and reproduction....where's the mystery? We don't see any kind becoming something it's not, nor have we even observed this, other than variation. "Micro-evolution" if you really want to throw the word in there.

Linda, whatever sosick believes is her business. I see what she's getting at. No amount of worldy achievements or brandishing Phd's is going to get a person into Heaven. What matters is what we do with those achievements for the good of our fellow man. In and of themselves? They are nothing, no matter how much the person boasts. Used to the good? They become like gold. However, Christ is the way and makes it possible for us to be cleansed of sin. So our good actions become meritable. We reject that offer to our own peril. I am not talking about those that are unaware or who have been deeply scarred or hurt. Only God can read the human heart and I'm in no position to judge.

Even Jesus said "not all who cry Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but those that do the will of my Father". Praising and praying, are not narcissistic wishes of a self centered God, but rather the joys of a Creator in His creation. Praising God is extremely powerful, even in the midst of sorrow and suffering because we ought to praise Him. He suffered death on our behalf, and has bought for us eternal life. What's there not to praise?

Again, I'm stating this from my own belief, because you have enquired. Not shoving it down your throat, so I'm just making that clear. I don't think we are nothing in God's eyes, but our sins are a stench to His nostrils, which is why He sent His only son to die, so that we could be forgiven and cleansed. We will always fall over, but the offer is always there so we can get back up. Our sins are damaging, they are the enemy, Christ is the remedy. But Linda there is so much more than this that is preached from the pulpit and it's far from doom and gloom, but rather uplifting and full of hope. It's not called the "Good News" for nothing.


Linda, when Russ was talking in his own words, you then said you wanted it backed up by websites/links or whatever. Then when any are given, you complain about it and say you're not going to wade your way through tons of information..... Russ has provided so much already in his posts, both of his own learning and sources of information. You've accused me also of copying and pasting, even when I wasn't. I couldn't win. I don't claim to understand absolutely everything either, I am not a scientist. So I do need to get information from other sources sometimes, just as you all do.


Then you said she implied it. Linda, be that as it may, it's speculation. Yes she may well have implied it. People have their own ideas about suffering. I know what I feel about it. We were told to take up our cross.


Linda, Kent Hovind has taught maths and science in Highschool for fifteen years. He may not have the highest qualifications, but has an excellent basic understanding of science and is more than able to point out the long since disproven fakes still turning up in textbooks, especially to the layperson. E.g. the long since disproven horse evolution theory continued to turn up, even at a museum. In full knowledge of the fact it had been disproven, the museum continued to keep it up there, because schools would go through and they did not want to discontinue indocrinating students. It was removed when enough people complained, but once it blew over, they put it back up again. These are the kinds of games that Kent is exposing. He's not removing science Linda, he's just exposing the lies that continue to turn up in modern day textbooks. That's all!


This is not an exercise is in presentation of oral and salesman skills, it is an exercise in presentation based on facts. This is a cop out Linda and tries to explain away the fact that evolutionists do not have a leg to evolve on when confronted by basic fallacies that Kent, who is often less qualified, faces them with it head on. The evolutionists who disagree with him, gave up debating him, unable to refute or diflect his message, and instead resorted to the refuge of the internet to concentrate their efforts on character assassination. Using every means possible to attack him and his education. Why can't they face him in public and cause a public meltdown of him Linda if they have their facts straight?

Kent has offered to debate more than one evolutionist in one sitting, now you're trying to say that though kent is a scientific ignoramus, he just has the gift of the gab, which is why he does so well in live debates. Another cop out. You call him dishonest, you ought to find out why the evolutionists refuse to come out from hiding and publicly humiliate him, when he's literally invited them and opened the door to do so.

If their theories hold ground and are solid science, they would very easily and very quickly tear him publicly apart, regardless of debating skills, honesty and facts is what prevails and if scientists debating him really had that going for them, they would not even need to resort to defaming their opponent with childish insults. True scientists would debate the issues, not personality or schooling.

[

http://www.kent-hovind.com/doctor/puapps.jpg

Russ has expressed some very negative things about homosexuals. I have actually been privately contacted by some who were so uncomfortable about the things he said that they expressed to me how appreciative they were of my own remarks to him on the subject. He also holds some reactionary political views that I find difficult to swallow. None of these things were meant generally as a comment about Christians, though you seem to take everything I say as words to that effect. If part of fundamentalism is to hate homosexuality then I have an issue with that, though I'd prefer not to go into it here because I'm sick of the sniping at the moment.


I am not going to say this again, so let it be said for the last time now. I am sorry you seem offended that your creationist beliefs have been called into question here by me, but that is the nature of the debate on a forum like this. You equate this with me hating you and all Christians in general, which is faulty logic and which I've said ten times over is not true, though as I also said it handily deflects the issue for you -- don't listen to the message, just shoot the messenger.

What's more, creation and evolution are non-issues on the mercury forum. There's no reason why they should be part of the discussions there. If I hated Christians so much, then why do you think I don't talk about religion there? Why do I do my own share of helping the people you think I so despise? Could it be because I don't despise them at all, and see these issues as only a part of the whole picture? I happen to believe that people can get on with each other in spite of their differences. Sorry that I don't conform more to the cartoon of the raving hate-filled infidel.

Bex I don't have the time or the inclination to hunt around for who has offered to debate Hovind and whom he has declined to debate. I have certainly come across transcripts of debates in the past that he lost.

What's more, I spent far too much time hunting through SoSick's messages last night to want to carry on talking about things she's said. The logic from the statements from her seems to go as follows: People are successful because they have done nothing to offend God; because they have a good relationship with him. It follows that people are not successful, or are suffering, because they have done something to offend him or do not have a good relationship with him. These simplistic statements made me angry. If she honestly does not believe this, she can say so. I'm done with raking it over, but I have at least given the evidence for why I was saying what I was.

Bex please look at the reasons why I said that websites and links are not evidence in a debate. You continue to quote from creationist websites without citation. It takes a second to list the claims they make, and yet you expect your opponent to go to the trouble of researching the whole claim themselves and making a response. I've done this; it can take hours. You can then, in another second, post another claim from another website. These claims need to be in your own words and they need to be succinct enough to debate properly here. I'm not sure why I'm not getting through here; these are standard rules in a debate. By the way I've seen a Hovind video and I've seen his website and they were full of nonsense -- do you now expect me to write a 20-page expose dicussing every single point? Maybe I should ask you to do a critical analysis of The origin of Species? At least it would help you put the quote mines you have used here in their proper context.

Finally, until anyone here gives concrete evidence about what Hovind actually says (e.g. how he exactly he is supposed to have disproved horse evolution and how the scientists must somehow be covering it up), comments about him are hot air. The proof is in the actual things he is saying.

I am acquainted with a person in California who is active in campaigning to keep creationism/ID out of the schools' science curricula. He has spoken with Hovind a few times on the radio. This is what I am referring to when I say Hovind thinks the sun burns by combustion. Here is what he had to say:


Hence the source of my comments that the ignoramus, who claims to have taught high school physics, thinks the sun burns by combustion. I could cite over 100 other examples of where he's got his science wrong and why he is not the qualified expert he claims to be.

Scientific experiments, combining different chemicals is not based on souly on theories, but experiments, demonstrations and reproductions. If in fact you get quite good at predicting the outcome due to past experience and experiments, and finding your predictions are accurate.....does this mean you're qualified to make guesses about the origins of mankind or the universe? Or does it just make you a pretty good chemical mixer predictor? Theories eventually require being backed up by evidence of some kind in order to claim them as a viable scientific fact. I do not know enough about the theory of relativity in order to comment on that. Tossing around theories is healthy, putting them to the test is healthy, observing the results in our world and finding evidence is another story. Preaching them as fact without back-up is presumptuous and unscientific.


This is assuming they even happened, which hasn't been proven. Therefore I am not obliged to believe they did, or that God required using evolution to produce what see observe today. It's not beyond God to do this however, nor is it beyond God to bring forth creation without evolutionary processes. You assume that I need to buy into evolution because it's a "fact", and God can come along for the ride. I'm not opposed to gravity, I haven't got much choice in the matter. It's the only thing grounding me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Gravity to me in no way excudes God, as any other universal law. For me it confirmation of a greater force and a creative one at that.

The bible speaks of the fall of mankind due to original sin which unleashed sickness, death and suffering. God is in complete control of preventing or inflicting if He wills it (e.g. plagues/punishments on cities for disobedience after ignoring warnings etc), but these things are often the result of our own sick planet and sin and something most of us suffer at onetime or another, one way or another in our lives. It does not in anyway cancel out God or the Devil. As there are many reasons sometimes for various sicknesses and though most maybe physical, there have been spiritual oppressions also that have caused real symptoms of illness. The bible also tells us of a time when all things will be restored. But until that time, human beings are to obviously use our intellect and scientific knowledge to do the best we can and put it into action to help our fellow man, as well as those with faith to put Christ's words into action. There are also miraculous healings too that occur, so God is very much a part of it too.

So no, I don't see the germ theory as being an issue in regards to the bible/sickness and suffering.


I am not sure what you mean by Hovind's pronouncements? I haven't made any....????
How can I give definining characteristics to something missing?

Linda, I have just about had a guts full of your ongoing criticisms of my posting method abilities (or lack of). You assume anytime I type anything in opposition to your beliefs, that I am copying and pasting. You have already been caught out before by putting down the apparent "author" of my post, and finding out it was me! You assumed I had copied and pasted that as well and then had to make an apology for it. When is this going to stop? I have told you that my posts are often in my own words, based on my own beliefs. I have used copying and pasting before yes, and sometimes do, and I cannot imagine everybody on this forum has not. If I have trouble with something , I may THEN go and check it out further and read it before I go and post. I have also watched videos and read books. Now you're saying links and websites are not proof of anything.....what is? You put one up yourself if I'm not mistaken on someone anti Hovind who stated all his apparent lies? Am I mistaken here?????? Have I not seen you do the same?

I can't quite figure out what you want. You complain about not having the links/websites to confirm, and yet when they are given (Russ for example has given them and websites), you then complain you haven't got time to go and read them and now you're saying they're not proof of anything. what on earth do you want Linda? You are constantly putting down someone's method of posting and anything they cite (unless it comes from your sources).

Is it just me that finds this bewildering? Something I am not getting here? I am not on debate forums Linda, so I had no idea there was a certain critique to posting and obviously whatever it is I'm doing or not doing is just not working out on here. Can anybody else tell me what is wrong with my posting methods other than Linda please?

Should I just discontinue posting if I am not conforming to the correct debate critique?. Posting in my own words doesn't work, I'm accused continually of copying and pasting. Putting up links and websites is now invalid. Are my home videos and books also invalid when it comes to Linda's observations? I'm finding a mass of contradictory wants from you Linda. Is everybody to walk around on broken glass with you all the time? I guess so. I wonder that anybody has any patience with you.


Where would you cite this from Linda? any websites by any chance?

I'm giving this a rest tonight and will try to respond to the rest of your post tommorrow if I can be bothered actually going through anymore of this with you.

heh, funny, did you spend hours and hours at it? Seems you didn't find very much.

I actually do believe that, however you are strectching my statements quite a bit, since you'd probably have quite a difficult time finding anyone who has never offended God, or sinned, or who wasn't born an enemy of God as the bible states we all have been... and past that I cannot bother taking the time to qualify anything futher because it takes too much time to argue with you, as is clearly evident by the fact that this forum is full of people arguing with you about your assumptions and misunderstandings.

I will say however, that success is not always measured with $$$, so using that to qualify success is a huge error and thinking that the Christian walk is an easy walk is a huger error... I realize that leaves huge gaps but that's the way it has to be because I really do find the bickering obnoxious.

Briefly here Bex: the statements in bold. Are they yours or have they been copied from somewhere? I was unsure of this before and I'm unsure now as well. There is also the quote mine from Darwin, taken out of context as these things are. If you didn't read The Origin of Species and pull it out yourself, then you got it from a creationist website or book. Am I wrong?

I would also ask that if you are going to post claims such as Hovind "proving" the inauthenticity of horse evolution, or a Christian biologist being fired apparently for being a creationist, that you give a link. I am very, very skeptical of the supposed unbiased nature of these stories and would like to look into the facts myself, which is what anyone would want to do if they want to get to the truth of a matter. Getting all "facts" from one source is pretty unreliable in my opinion.

By the way, every time Russ tells me to look at Hovind's website or video, I tell him to look at Buddika's Creationist Lies Index. It's a bit tongue-in-cheek of me because I do not expect him to refute the dozens of points there. He should not expect me to refute an entire website either. We need to try to stick to a point or two at a time, such as the one I've made about Hovind being in error about the sun.

Why don't you just go to google and do a search yourself? Is it necessary to require Bex or anyone else to do more of the work you should do yourself? Your endless make work requests are quite annoying too. Here you are having a discussion on the internet but it would appear you do not know how to use the internet to do anything except chat and argue at webboards.

It took me about 15 seconds to find quite a number of articles related to "Dr Nathaniel Abraham is suing the prestigious Woods Hole'.

Here is what would appear to be a more accurate version of the story of Dr. Gonzalez, cited several posts back. Wikipedia is pretty neutral territory. I note the comments about the quote mining by the Discovery Institute, among other things.

May I ask, Bex, whether you check these kinds of sources yourself when The Discovery Institute or other creationist organisations give you news? Or do you prefer to filter it through them alone? I generally don't accept the truth of something unless I've looked at different sources and established who is saying what. I'm not quite so trusting I guess.

So, Linda, is it fair to say that you and others who believe as you do, favor disallowing advancement or equal treatment in a person's career because of their religious beliefs?

What about their color? Does this also play a role in how you believe a person should be 'allowed' to achieve success?

BTW, considering how often you have mentioned my name in the past several previous posts and blamed your own ahem inerrant behavior on me even, it is a bit odd that you ignore me now.

OK, apparently Dr. Abraham is a zebrafish developmental biologist. He applied for a job, the centrality of which is evolutionary theory. He would have known this because he would presumably have read the job description before he applied. The director of the project stated: "You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work. This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted."

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination dismissed his complaint earlier this year. They said Abraham was terminated because his request not to work on evolutionary aspects of the project would be challenging for Woods Hole because the research was based on evolutionary theories.

In other words, he was fired because he couldn't carry out the job description. That's usually why someone is fired. He's an even more tenuous torch for perceived injustices to creationists than Dr. Gonzalez.

You apparently haven't read the Wikipedia link. Or if you have, you seem to be forgetting/ignoring large parts of it. There is little evidence that he's been descriminated against on the basis of his religion.

Actually I read the link and there is a preponderous amount of evidence that he is discriminated against because of his religious beliefs.

I guess we can use those two examples as reason to disqualify non-christians, wiccans, evolutionists, homosexuals etc, from teaching in Christian schools or being hired by Christian organizations then.

All in all, I then have to wonder why you seem to feel discriminated against by Christians. It's like this I guess, according to the rules you approve of... either change the way you think or get lost.

Why do you take issue with that attitude if you approve of it yourself? It's easy to see why people like you fear having Christians in positions of leadership. It would mean that the Christians could use all of the examples set by non-Christians as a basis to eradicate non-christian thinking from the public sphere. If you are so opposed to that idea in context of christians doing it, why do you approve of others who do the same thing?

Why, in particular, do you take issue with my strongly held beliefs, Linda, when you have just set forth these examples as appropriate? Is there any particular reason why I should bend over backwards to accept your beliefs, based on what you yourself believe?

Back to suffering,, though the careers of these two scientists have obviously suffered due to their religious beliefs, a great victory has been won by Christians who can now use these two examples as reason to disqualify people who believe in evolution from teaching their nonsense in Christian schools.

No. I am saying that their conclusions concerning the age of the earth (geologist/physicist), abiogenesis (biologist/geologist), and the early centuries of the universe (physicist) seem to be a conspiracy of lies/misdirection, according to you.

You say they have no evidence to support their theories, yet their research notes, tests and experiments seem to show evidence. Others reviewing those notes, tests and experiments agree that it is evidence. What parts of their research do you feel is not supported by the evidence quoted in their research notes?


Did Dr Abraham win his lawsuit? Could you provide a paper written by Dr. Abraham that provides evidence supporting instant creation of the zebrafish species and thus refutes some parts of evolution?

The overwhelming majority of biologists, geologists and physicists conclude that the evidence supports an old earth (4.6 billion years) and evolution from a common ancestor to the diversity of life that we have today.

If you were a geographer getting ready to hire an assistant, would you hire the assistant that concluded the world was flat or the one that concluded the world was a oblate spheroid? Could the flat earther claim religious discrimination if his religious book said the world was flat?

Being right about the basics of evolution does not mean he was right about everything.

What do you suppose that evidence should look like?

This is a good question. Even if scientists can make cells emerge from a vat of organic/inorganic chemical, that does not prove that life on Earth started that particular way. It just shows that life COULD have started that way. Once it is shown that it could have happened at least one way, then it becomes more plausible that it did happen.


What specific aspects of the "oceanic soup" theory make it implausible to you?
I never said I believe in spontaneous development. Perhaps God stirred things up a bit and put the right chemicals close together so that the first amino acids could form. Then they formed proteins. Proteins have been shown to be self replicating if given the right materials around them. These things and more have been shown to occur on their own in the right conditions.

Seemingly spontaneous compound structure: Snowflake
Is an intelligent designer required to build each snowflake or did He just put the laws in place so that delicate thing could form on its own?

Could you provide me with some of the assumptions requiring faith that the evolutionist scientists are using?

What preconceived beliefs are you talking about? Can you provide an example of an experiment where the preconceived belief lead to the conclusion that one animal evolved from another?

There are a number of things stated above that would require a great deal of discussion to provide an adequate explanation of even why the questions are not the right questions. I would be glad to deal with them one at a time, if you like. However, to go into all of them would cause us to diverge from the topic at hand, which I thought was abiogenesis.

Question: Since you believe we can't test the past, do you think that forensic science results should be inadmissible in court?

By that same token, the evidence and conjecture that amalgams cause health problems is not scientific because it is debatable. Is this what you are saying?
Are Newton's laws of motion, scientific? You do realize that at the beginning of the 20th century those laws were debated and eventually overturned/refined due to Einstein? Does that mean they really weren't scientific. Scientists debate the conclusions of other scientists all the time. I don't think you can use "debatable" as a criteria for deciding evolution and abiogenesis are not science.

As far as "truckloads of evidence" is concerned. I can see how you have doubts. You don't work with the evidence or read the research. You may have been exposed to evolution opponents only and have taken what they say as fact. Have you looked at any research that provides support for evolution? It does exist.
Some people can truthfully claim that there are truckloads of evidence because they have been in the thick of the research. Others just believe it when many scientists that they respect point to the mountains of research and evidence. That is expedient when you have already made up your mind but not if you are still trying to find out what is most correct. That is why I don't point to 'mountains of evidence" as my evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct, that doesn't help anyone.

As I said before, if you want to talk about one particular question that you have about evolution, I will provide as much explanation/evidence as I can dig up. I just ask that we stick to one topic and not ask a lot of side questions.


Could you provide a particular example where the evidence was forced to fit the evolutionist belief system?

It appears by this statement that you believe we have not advanced biology at all since 1955. Have you ever made statements based on your understanding that you later realized were incorrect? Do you think scientists get it right all the time and never have to eat crow a little?

Again, you state that we cannot research the past. Archeology is not science?

The answer to this depends on what you mean by complexity and what you will accept as evidence. For example: Dr. Barry Hall, a microbiologist, took out part of the DNA code that allowed a particular bacteria to "digest" lactose. He then grew colonies of bacteria from that original bacterium. When they ran out of all food except lactose, they should have died out. However, some survived and when studied, revealed that they had reacquired the ability to digest lactose through a mutation on another gene. Is this evidence of increased complexity and beneficial mutation?

How about the fossil record showing the gradual change of reptile jawbone portions into the 3 bones that make up the middle ear of the mammals? This change is observed in fossils that are found in a consistent time line from well before any mammal fossils are found up to when the first classified mammal fossil is found.


The PHD scientists that have studied biology and evolution are either right, liars or are ignorant in their own field of study. Since you say that they just make things up, you seem to be leaning toward calling them liars.

This faith you say these scientists exhibit (implying that they don't know what they are doing as scientists), what is it they have this faith in?

You say there is no evidence of evolution ("without back-up"). Have you read any books on evolution that weren't trying to tear it down? What about research papers concerning the lineage of horses or whales, which provide fossil evidence in great detail including location, depth, type of rock and relative time era? It is good to study your enemy if you plan on attacking or defending against him.

So, if God could do either one, how do we find out which one He did use?

Creative enough to build a universe that runs on its own and, maybe, develops life on its own?
The Theory of Gravitational Attraction does not exclude God but it doesn't give Him credit for anything either. It just says "this is what we see happening and this may be how it works".
Evolution doesn't exclude God or give Him credit either. It just says "this is what we see happening and this may be how it works".

I got lost in here. Are you saying all sickness is controlled by God? Does this mean you don't believe that microbes cause disease or that God controls the microbes to cause disease in this person but not that person?

I thought you meant that the evolutionary links between species were missing. You know...dinosaur to bird, for example. So, I thought you could provide a description of what those organisms (links) should look like to you

Now let's see if I understand this: Dr Gonzalez' astronomy was a threat to evolutionism? That's what the evolutionists are saying, but it looks like in their haste to persecute they forgot something: their own bogus claim that "evolution is separate". The story's supposed to go cosmic evolution > stellar evolution > chemical evolution > prebiotic evolution > evolution. They're not supposed to be concerned about protecting anything but the last one.

But they are. I don't think it's properly called a conspiracy. Conspiracies are secret. This is open ideological warfare. Actions speak louder than words, and it's pretty clear that none of those evolutionists consider their "theory of evolution" to be concerned only with what happens after life "evolves into existence".

They draw these artificial little lines in order to call creationists ignorant, but they forget the line exists in no time if they perceive a chance to hurt an enemy of their dogma. If the line had any meaning to them at all, they couldn't view Dr. G. as an enemy. His book was about the planet!

I'll try to remember this the next time a creationist is mocked for ignoring the imaginary line between abiogenesis & evolutionism, or even big bang & evolutionism. By their actions they themselves make it abundantly clear that questioning any part of the story threatens the whole story.

It seems to me there's another language spoken by evolutionists. They call one-celled organisms "simple", and they call snowflakes "complex".

I guess that's what it takes to call evolutionism "science", eh?

I wonder how much chance there is that a melting snowflake will spring to life as its complexity diminishes and it becomes a more simple form. At some point, shouldn't it contain as little information as a lifeform? Okay, I don't actually wonder very much.

Actually, religious organizations are exempted from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007


As it should. Your freedom to worship God should not be restricted by requiring your organization to hire people that don't believe as you do or who are in violation of your religious tenets.

I recommend that you inform your friends of this exemption so they don't worry about it being a possibility.

I see no evidence that anyone here has read the Wikipedia article about Gonzalez. I assumed that once read, the situation would be self-explanatory. I will therefore present some excerpts and again ask that they be read by anyone claiming this person was maliciously discriminated against. Those who are claiming that he is a martyr for the creationist cause, please would you address the following points. Briefly, they are that the main reason for his failure to win tenure was his less than spectacular academic record and funding; and that the Discovery Institute has misrepresented the case through the ever-present art of quote-mining. The final comment questions the scientific nature of intelligent design/creationism. If it is not scientific then there is a legitimate question as to why a scientist is spending much of his time on it.



I also thought that LinearAQ made an apt comment earlier:



Would someone like to start a thread which presents the reasons why you believe creationism is scientific, and why geologists, biologists, geneticists, astronomers etc should favour it over the evidence they have as experts in their respective fields? There must be overhwhelming evidence that they are wrong. Please show me.

I did not say cells were "simple" nor did I compare them to snowflakes. The snowflake example was to show that God can put rules in place that don't require Him to form every chemical bond with His own hands.

That said, I find your post to be little but an attempt to insult me along with all who consider evolution to be a viable theory, implying we are stupid or liars. So, I am requesting that you post something that is at least on topic and is also not a thinly veiled insult. I got a single and final warning for my behavior so I would expect Mr Tanner to hold you to the same standard. I would hate to see you forced out if we were having a good debate.

I thought the snowflake example addressed a common PRATT, which is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. (Don't quote-mine me on that.) Order does not always descend into chaos. Witness the snowflake.

the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is superceded by the EEO laws.

Linda, the BOLD type was a cited example of discrimmination, taken from the Creation magazine I receive. They don't just arise out of the top of my head, do yours?

It is from the Creation magazine, you can find it on the web as well and complain to them if you wish www.CreationOnTheWeb.com Vol.30.No.2

Here is the information for the bold type I had cited - Topic - Christian biologist, fired for creationist beliefs Reuters, <www.reuters.com/articlezoddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1034

The next one I cited was - Evolutionist chemistry professor acknowledges 'errors' American Scientist online, <www.americanscientist.org/template/AssertDetail/assetid/56234>, 13 December 2007

Just because it does not come from the sources you approve of (Evolution or Evolution sympathetic) does not mean that it becomes invalid, even if Linda Lou says so. Who died and made you God of information, science and sources? The "origin of species' is basically your evolutionary bible, why would I read yours when I have my own Christian bible which I am more than happy with, and hold as much faith in as you do in yours.



Coming from somebody who only wants the "facts" stemming from her own belief system, I take your statements with a grain of salt. You have told me that websites do not qualify is evidence. Now you are asking for a link. Is that so you can then rubbish the website as well as those I quote/cite? It wouldn't matter what the information or website was, you'd rubbish it immediately because it's of "creation" origin. Understandable, we all have our bias, including yourself.

The horse evolution theory. First of all I must say that I am surprised that you believe this, or in fact any evolutionist still does? It was officially proved wrong in 1951, over 50 years ago, widely admitted by experts but it is still presented as factual in textbooks and museums. Putting animals on a chart that share basic similarities does not make them intermediate/earlier forms and labelling them as such won't turn wishes into fact. If they could, they'd fit any animal resembling the horse in there as well (Donkey?), problem is the donkey is alive and well in modern times, so they can't really add them to the "evolution of the horse" tree. Any animal resembling another, because it may no longer be living, does not make it an earlier transitional form. It just makes it extinct (that we all can agree on). Evolutionists are the ones pinning the labels on and coming to bias conclusions. Simply because it fits in with what they WANT to believe. Problem with that is, what do they do when they discover the apparent earlier form in the same strata as the "modern" form?

Two modern-day horse species, equus nevadenis and equus occidentalis, have been found in the same rock formation in Nebraska USA as Eohippus proving that both lived at the same time. (cf. Wysong, R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, Midland, Michigan, 1981, p. 455, see also Hitching)

Pettingrew, a Paleontologist, says that modern horse pre-existed Hyracotherium by 70 million years. According to him, the horse lived in the Mesozoik Age, 120 million years before Hyracotherium appeared in Eocene Age, 50 million years ago.

If the evolution of the horse was true, why do we find an inconsistent number of ribs and vertebrae in those horse evolution examples? Does evolution decide to lose and gain along the way at will? Shouldn't the modern horse have at least the same or MORE than the apparent "earlier forms"? -

The rib numbers first decrease, then increase suddenly, and then decrease again. Hyracotherium had 18 pairs of ribs, Orohippus had 15, Pliohippus had 19, the horse has 18.

The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.

Why then would toes turn into hoofs? I thought evolution was a gaining of information not a loss? A progression? And what makes you so sure that an animal with a toe formation is an earlier form rather than another variation or even another type of animal altogether? There is enough variation already in every animal in our modern day world with no signs of evolution taking place and still reproducing after their own kind as history has consistently shown us without exception.

Linda's pet hate (quote mines). Linda I don't conform to your "rules" on here. If anybody believes this is taken out of context, let them decide for themselves or look it up. The source is provided. Does one need context to prove that Captain Cook discovered New Zealand in 1769? Do we need context that Columbus discovered America in 1942. The truth of the matter is, nobody likes to have certain quotes catch up with them or their collegues, it's bad for their cause. It is embarrassing. However, with these quotes, sources have also been provided. Linda, if they have lied or been taken them out of context, the "quotees" can take action if they wish.

One of the top evolutionists in the world writes."The uniform continuous transformation of the hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generationsof textbook writers, never happened in nature ,"Simpson, George Gaylord, Life of the Past, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1953, p.119.

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong ."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks ."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.

"When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

EOHIPPUS, A "LIVING FOSSIL"—*Hitching has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush ."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

NOT A HORSE AT ALL—(*#2/11 The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has nothing to do with horses.

"In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse ."—*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—* David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."—*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.

NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—A leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature ."—*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119. Earlier, *Simpson said this:

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations ."—*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the startling admission:

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed ."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

On topic? Please! It's certainly on topic. We both know that the least complex lifeforms are more complex than anything formed via natural means by many, many orders of magnitude. Abiogenesis advocates claim complexity is no problem because snowflakes and other extremely simple crystals form naturally.

I will state flat out that the argument that crystals demonstrate nature has the capacity to form something as complex as life is only capable of convincing people who are very uninformed and/or predisposed to believe in spite of the evidence. I put it in easy-to-understand terms, and you say this = calling people "stupid or liars". It seems to me, the ones who try to hide this argument in long, drawn-out, difficult-to-understand terms would be the ones insulting people.

It's S.O.P (standard operating procedure) for evolutionists to always call early lifeforms "simple", and call snowflakes "complex". Every new definition they advocate for "life" is invariably much simpler than what we know "life" actually is.

I'll be happy to grant that you are free to deviate from this doctrine. I sincerely hope that is your choice. It's a step in the right direction (toward reality). I can provide plenty of links to evolutionists saying these things while discussing abiogenesis. Would you agree that they are mistaken? <Not rhetorical - please answer this if you respond.

This here is an example of life being called "simple". There's an abundant supply. Likewise it's no problem to find examples of snowflakes being called "complex". How much time would you have me waste? Tell you what: as time permits, I'll match you link for link to any you can dig up where an evolutionist calls a snowflake "simple". I'll also match anything you can dig up where an evolutionist advocates a new definition of "life" that tends toward complexity rather than simplicity with 3 links supporting what I've maintained.

Now considering that creationists are aware of the rules God has put in place to govern chemicals, and the point isn't disputed, your remark would seem to be off-topic if you don't intend to pursue the standard proabiogenesis argument. Please understand my error in assuming you meant it to be on-topic.

** For the record, I hereby request Mr. Tanner to hold me to the same standard as anyone else here. I've abandoned discussion boards in the past for displaying clear patterns of favoritism, and I fully intend to hold board admins to a fair standard as well. **

PS, to my above post. I see I made an error --> I meant 1492 ;-)



Shifting the burden of proof onto those that question or oppose your theories, when we are not teaching them as fact in the classroom is revealing. I have people far more intelligent and learned than I am on my side of the fence who are much more capable of understanding and exposing than I could ever be. I've not yet seen any photographic or realistic examples of evidence for evolution. Just words and animation. So until that day, I am happy with the examples of life and design that I see around me and what history has always shown to us. The land before time? That's another story and one that evolutionists seem more than happy to tell.



I don't know Linear, perhaps you should tell me? You guys have already decided that by putting across assumptions as fact. I don't find assumptions enough to be called science. I think pre-conceived ideas should be kept out of it if one is going to be scientific and honest about it and you do find those people. I've watched "Icons of Evolution" today on video and found it excellent. I'd recommend it. It is not staunchly evolution or creation. In fact it kind of leaves it up to the viewer, they give both sides and tell you what they have been able to test and what either side thinks and what they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt. As there most definitely is bias that comes into it. That is clear.



If it doesn't exclude God, then how can you say it doesn't give Him credit for anything? Isn't this a contradiction? How do you or them know this by the way? Since you're unable to test origins and exactly what took place, when it took place, how it took place. I fail to see how any of you can claim as such.



You clearly didn't read my post. You're asking me to give you every answer regarding God and sickness. If the bible contained everything, we'd never finish reading it. I read the bible and can only give things to you from my understanding of it (which is probably rather limited, since I am far from a scholar). I believe that many things that we suffer, were brought on after original sin. I know that God is in control, but I also know that He allows things to happen too. How involved He is in every microbe? That's something I don't have understanding about. Since I am neither divine, or have been divinely inspired to give you a theosis on that, I prefer to say to you that this is just what I "think", but I would not give a lecture on it ;-) Since I myself wish to understand Him more.



I have been through this with Linda. I do not believe in dinosaur to bird evolution. Just as much as I do not believe in the horse evolution theory. Just as much as I do not believe in ape like creatures becoming man. You want me to give a description of something missing and this makes no sense. This to me is like saying "Could you provide me of a description of what the missing link between a bat and a horse would look like"?

You know why I say that? I'll give you an example: Taken from Creation magazine - www.CreationOnTheWeb.com Vol. 30 No.2 Page 40.

SADDLE UP THE HORSE, IT'S OFF TO THE BAT CAVE

In the prestigeous Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, scientists reported their study of genetic re-arrangements associated with retro-posons, which are strands of DNA that copy themselves into RNA and then copy themselves back into DNA at different sites on a chromosome. In the evolutionary paradigm, closely related species should share more of these rearrangements than more distant relatives.

Until this study, scientists considered bats and horses to be very distant cousins. They were shocked to discover that bats and horses share a high degree of DNA similarity ;-) "I think this will be a surprise for many scientists." stated Norihiro Okada at the Tokyo Institute of technology in Japan. "no one expected this".

Why such a surprise?

Evolutionary scientists establish relationships between living organisms based on morphological (form, structure) and DNA similarity. Creatures that are anatomically similar are believed to be so because they possess a close evolutionary relationship - they are supposed to have inherited these characteristics from a fairly 'close' common ancestor. The same is true of creatures that are genetically very similar. So if two creatures are supposed to be evolutionarily close by one of these criterea, they should be close by the other also - provided, that is, that the whole idea of common descent is valid.

Applying this logic, researchers predicted that cows and horses would be much more closely related than bats and horses. Cows are anatomically, physiologically, functionally, and behaviourally rather similar to horses. on the other hand, even a child could identify the huge differences between bats and horses. Compared to horses and cows, a bat is very different in its skeletal anatomy, mode of locomotion (flying), navigation (echolocation), soft tissue arrangements, diet, and lifestyle.

Bats and horses should thus have been very different in their DNA. Because of their obvious structural and functional differences. This shocking results revealed an astounding discrepancy between morphological and genetic data.

More problems

The genetic data seems to also contradict the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record. Horses supposedly evolved from a small quadruped beginning 35-55 millions years ago on the evolutionary time-line, taking their modern form only in the last 1.5 millions years. Cows supposedly began their evolutionary process about 23 million years ago. On the other hand, fully formed, modern-looking bat fossils appear around 60 millions years ago (without any intermediates linking them to their supposed land-bound ancestors).

Separated by such an immense supposed time gap, horse and bat DNA should have been much more different by now. Cows and horses, supposedly having evolved in overlapping time frames, should share much more similarity in thei respective genomes.

Implications

when it comes to bats and horses, the facts just don't add up for evolution. Common descent is based on a whole set of assumptions, extrapolations, and inferences. However, in this case, the hard scientific data reveal that common descent is completely invalid.

As Okad said, in regards to the surprising discovery, '......We need to look at fossils from a new point of view...' He's exactly right. Perhaps it is time to throw away the tired, old evolutionary glasses and replace them with a fresh pair of biblical lenses.

Ryan Jaroncyk

Linear, I recall you mentioning something about the bible stating the earth is flat? Could you please provide me with chapter and verse? I have read through the bible a few times and never come across such a statement, yet I've heard evolutionists state this before and when asked, I've yet to see anybody give chapter and verse. My Father by the way trained to be a priest in the seminary and required much reading of the bible as you can imagine, he too has never heard the like. I do know there is a reference to the stars and the earth in the bible and even when the "advanced" wise men of the day, actually thought they could count them - the bible had long since proven that they were inumerable (like sands on the shore). Unfortunately in order to prove this, I too need to find chapter and verse to back that up.

I read it. I also followed the links provided at the bottom of the wiki page. I found that evolutionists admit to campaigning against him, although they claim it wasn't the "primary" reason he was denied tenure (money is given as #1, and that's just hard to argue against). Still, "secondary" reasons are part of the process, are they not? According to what's written, they are.

There was an organized campaign against the book he co-authored, and against the video based off of the book. There was also a campaign against him at the university, although they quibble over whether it was against him personally or generally, and if it was against his tenure or just against him in a more vague sense. They clearly do view him as an enemy, and nobody at wiki or anywhere else indicates otherwise.

I maintain that any divisions in the evolutionist origins story are artificial, and they only assert them in self-serving arguments in order to make their job easier and belittle others. Or in order to avoid offending the subset of compromisers who are friendly to their cause. If you read the article carefully yourself, you should see at least some of this evidence.

In case my point went over your head (or you merely read too quickly), I'd like an explanation as to why this man's work in astronomy is viewed as a threat. You've said time and again abiogenesis isn't part of the teachings of evolution, and here we have powerful evidence indicating even astronomy is part of it. Am I mistaken?

I'm trying to understand what the appeal of quote mines is to creationists and why they so fervently insist that they are legitimate evidence. I've said these things before but I'll repeat them and maybe someone can address them.

First, just because someone says something is true, does not make it true. Providing quotes as stand-alone evidence is a logical fallacy called the argument from authority. This invalidates quote mines completely for a start.

However, for those who persist in using them. I've shown you how the process is done. The Wikipedia article showed you how the Discovery Institute did it. You take a text, select pieces out of it that support whatever point of view you want to get across, and put the pieces back together in such a way that they convery that point of view -- regardless of whether it has anything to do with the original intention. Or, you lift a sentence or two out of the context in which they originally had a different meaning than they would if they stood alone. Many of the Darwin quote mines fall into this category, such as the PRATT about the structure of the eye.

This sort of evidence would be thrown out of a court of law because it does not represent what was actually being said. You'll remember I even quote mined one of Bex's posts (or was it SoSick's)? and claimed that it showed that she hated God and the Bible. I then said that by her own standards these were her own words so this must be what she said. The point being that the whole practice is ludicrous. And yet . . . creationists persist with it. Is there a belief that scientists secretly think their own work is worthless and every now and then they somehow trip themselves up and betray their true feelings? Does anyone honestly believe this?

A final point about quote mines, which LinearAQ touched on earlier. Many of them are decades old. Science has moved on just a bit. Ideas change as new evidence comes to light. Strange how I very rarely see any up-to-date quote mines being posted.

I'll address other points here later, unless someone else wants to field the horse stuff first. I just had to ask these questions because I have to admit I'm flummoxed. (Don't quote-mine me on that.)

Thanks for the links Bex. It's helpful to see what people are actually saying in these news stories. I can then cross-check the facts. I do this when I'm researching anything, including alt med.


Ignoring the final remark in that statement, I'll remind you that I said I thought Wikipedia is pretty neutral, which is why I cited it as evidence in the case of Gonzalez. I do not limit my news on any topic to any one source because there is always bias around, and I want to get a balanced point of view. Do you ever cross-check your creationist news with other sources in order to do the same? I suspect it must be tempting to read things that are filtered in such a way that they become palatable to one's views, but this is not the same as looking for the truth.


LOL, and I bow down and worship under a picture of Darwin every day. Not.

Like many others, I can see that there is a fossil record and that there is geological evidence that the earth is old. There's no reason why I feel I have to deny this or make it sound like the evidence is false and scientists are liars. This is not the same as following a religion. You could just as easily accuse me of worshipping all the factual books I own. I like learning about things. I just don't have a need to believe the literal truth of a holy book which contradicts the available evidence, so there's no issue here for me.


I'm not in the business of rubbishing entire websites, as I said. It's too time-consuming. Like I said earlier, a link will enable me to read a story and get some information that I can cross-check. If creationist websites gave unbiased, truthful, genuinely scientific news then there would be no need for me to call anything they said into question. However if there are radically different accounts of those stories in many other places, and if the science is wrong, then why would you expect me to quietly accept those things? I don't criticise for the sake of it; I criticise when there are inaccuracies to be criticised.

That just leaves this horse stuff. I'll have to look into it, though at the moment this would appear to be the old, old PRATT of there being no transitional forms.