5ec8a813   
   XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.talk.creationism   
   From: gmail@com.mkbilbo   
      
   On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:16:43 -0700, AllSeeing-I wrote:   
      
   > On Jul 19, 5:13 am, Devils Advocaat  wrote:   
   >> On 19 July, 02:11, AllSeeing-I  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > On Jul 18, 6:54 am, Devils Advocaat  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > > On 18 July, 10:25, old man joe  wrote:> " And God   
   >> > > made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their   
   >> > > kind, and every thing   
   >> > > > that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it   
   >> > > > was good. "   
   >>   
   >> > > > " after his kind, "  not after what an Evolutionist says.   
   >>   
   >> > > > in fact, going on 3 years ago, a typical Evolutionist writing for   
   >> > > > Natgeo. Channel made the claim " our Thanksgiving turkey was once   
   >> > > > a dinosaur which evolved back into a turkey. " crack heads make   
   >> > > > more sense then these doctors and PhD's who concoct such Gnostic   
   >> > > > non-sense.   
   >>   
   >> > > [snipped for brevity and focus]   
   >>   
   >> > > I know that omj chooses to post and run.   
   >>   
   >> > > But I must address this nonsense.   
   >>   
   >> > > First off, no creationist can come up with a clear definition of   
   >> > > the term "kind" that all other creationists can agree with.   
   >>   
   >> > > If "kind" is the same as species, then that calls into doubt the   
   >> > > idea that Noah had two of every "kind" on the ark, especially when   
   >> > > you consider the logistics of eight people having to feed, water,   
   >> > > and muck out all those critters.   
   >>   
   >> > > If "kind" is the same as genus or any of the other taxonomic   
   >> > > categories, then that calls into doubt the creationist claim that   
   >> > > evolution didn't (and cannot) happen, as there would have been a   
   >> > > phenomenal rate of diversification after the flood.   
   >>   
   >> > > Also that waffle about how someone working for National Geographic   
   >> > > is supposed to have said (or written) "our Thanksgiving turkey was   
   >> > > once a dinosaur which evolved back into a turkey" is a claim that   
   >> > > doesn't hold water as no source material is provided.   
   >>   
   >> > Pure unadulterated lies.   
   >>   
   >> > There are definitions that the atheist will not accept. Ya see, the   
   >> > atheist will only accept one form of evidence. Which is synonymous to   
   >> > planting ones head up their.. err.. I mean planting ones head in the   
   >> > sand.   
   >>   
   >> Where did I mention any sort of evidence maddy?   
   >>   
   >> I stated a fact that there is no single definition of the term "kind"   
   >> that all creationists can agree on.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > Has anyone observed a species evolving from bird to dino then back to   
   >> > bird? No. Or a fish evolving from water to land then back to water?   
   >> > Of course not.   
   >>   
   >> The truth is that omj's claim about someone working for Nat Geo making   
   >> such a statement is unsupported nonsense.   
   >>   
   >> Why do I say this, because there is nothing on the Nat Geo website that   
   >> corroborates omj's claim.   
   >>   
   >> Simple isn't it?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > But the atheist/evolutionist will accept science's definition even   
   >> > though no one has ever observed such a thing taking place. Nor does   
   >> > any process on the earth suggest that such a thing happens. Still,   
   >> > the atheist believes the men in the white coats like fish swallowing   
   >> > a loaded hook.   
   >>   
   >> Still waiting for you to produce a single clear cut definition of the   
   >> creationist term "kind" that is accepted by all creationists.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > Why do they do this? Because if they accepted other forms of valid   
   >> > evidence then they would be forced to admit that the theory of   
   >> > evolution is just an idea and not some kind of religious dogma.   
   >>   
   >> Lets see now, you offer up anecdotal evidence, which by any definition   
   >> is unreliable.   
   >>   
   >> Yet you reject circumstantial evidence used by scientists as   
   >> meaningless, when in fact it is more reliable than any amount of   
   >> anecdotal evidence.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > OTOH we have religious texts and ancient historical documents   
   >> > explaining what was created, how it was created and how everything   
   >> > has evolved since then. Guess what. The explanations match what we   
   >> > can observe and even manipulate for ourselves. Yes, species do adapt   
   >> > to their environment. I would expect nothing less from a brilliant   
   >> > creator then to give his creation a means to adapt to a dynamic   
   >> > earth.   
   >>   
   >> Your precious ancient texts are not reliable evidence maddy.   
   >>   
   >> Lets take the idea of a global flood as is found in many cultures.   
   >>   
   >> They all disagree on who caused the flood.   
   >>   
   >> Why the flood happened.   
   >>   
   >> How many people survived the flood.   
   >>   
   >> How many animals survived the flood.   
   >>   
   >> Etc, etc, etc.   
   >>   
   >> They don't corroborate each other.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > Anyone can take a garden or a litter of pups and manipulate the   
   >> > species as long as they are the same "kind".   
   >>   
   >> So a garden is a species is it.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > Simple. Direct. Observable. Just as we find in the ancient texts.   
   >>   
   >> Nothing written in the ancient texts is observable maddy   
   >   
   > Yes they are DA   
   >   
   > Take this topic for instance -- What exactly is evolution from the   
   > bible's POV.   
   >   
   > Jacob is described in the bible to use selective breeding more then 5000   
   > years ago. We can do the same thing ourselves today with dogs. Nothing   
   > beyond that has ever been observed by human eyes though.   
   >   
   > So evolutionary science is taking it's data and making an inference for   
   > divergence. But nothing of the sort has ever been witnessed. Nor has any   
   > process on earth been observed to suggest that such a thing takes place.   
   > Plus, not all species have diverged. We have evidence for many species   
   > not changing at all or very little over millions of years.   
   >   
   > If you apply the theory of evolution to something else, like a rock for   
   > instance, you are saying that a rock can eventually diverge into   
   > something completely different; Like a tree. But not all rocks will   
   > change into a tree. See how silly that sounds? Well it is equally as   
   > silly to make the unbelievable claim that fish can eventually become   
   > human because of time, mutations, and the elusive force called natural   
   > selection.   
   >   
   > Species divergence just does not happen. It is not supported by   
   > observation. It is not supported by history. It is not supported by any   
   > of the ancient documents. There is not a shred of prior knowledge to   
   > supports such a claim.   
   >   
   > In all of recorded history, from then to now, there is not a single   
   > species described, but when we observe that species today we can say it   
   > appears to be diverging. Or developing new features to diverge.   
   >   
   > However. Here is what history does tell us. During the days of Enoch   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)