25a20f53   
   XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.talk.creationism   
   From: gmail@com.mkbilbo   
      
   On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:54:43 -0700, Devils Advocaat wrote:   
      
   > On 19 July, 12:16, 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   
   >   
   > And yet you haven't acknowledged the fact that when it comes to flood   
   > myths, all your precious ancient texts disagree with each other, as they   
   > do on so many other issues.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > You could not have picked a worse example of alleged "selective   
   > breeding" maddy.   
   >   
   > Genesis 30:37-39   
   >   
   > "And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut   
   > tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which   
   > was in the rods.   
   >   
   > And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters   
   > in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should   
   > conceive when they came to drink.   
   >   
   > And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle   
   > ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."   
   >   
   > Care to show us demonstrable evidence that this can actually work maddy?   
      
      
   Yeah, Lamarck anyone?   
      
      
   --   
   Mark K. Bilbo                a.a. #1423   
   EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion   
   ------------------------------------------------------------   
   "Oh honey, I have a fake laugh with your name written   
    all over it."   
      
   -- Karen Walker   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)