XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: alt.talk.creationism   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "James"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   news:h7v51a5h2p6njg06815f6mhp5fuqmcqrsk@4ax.com...   
   >   
   > "Malte Runz"    
   > >"James"  skrev i meddelelsen   
   > >news:hfs31a14s4d28i2oaf3n135inids4t1ht6@4ax.com...   
   > >   
   > >(snip)   
   > >   
   (snip)   
      
   > >   
   > >Creationist science is the quintessence of pseudoscience.   
   >   
   > Some are, and some are not. In my case, based on the Bible, I don't   
   > believe the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. I accept   
   > the fact that it could be billions of years old as scientists tell us.   
      
   Scientist don't say 'it could be'.   
      
   >   
   >   
   > >   
   > >> ... like macroevolution brings shame to those scientists   
   > >> who endorse it and teach it. They should know better. And it goes   
   > >> against the fossil record. ...   
   > >   
   > >The fossil record supports 'macroeveolution'. That's how scientist got   
   > >the   
   > >idea in the first place.   
   > >   
   > >But since you hold true science with the highest regards, why don't you   
   > >supply some true scientific evidence that falsifies the   
   > >'macroevolutionary'   
   > >part of the ToE?   
   >   
   > Certainly. ...   
      
   I'll get back to you on that.   
      
   > ... I'll even quote the founder of that pseudoscience, Darwin   
   > himself.   
      
   I have a modest bachelor's degree in geology, nut I probably know more about   
   the ToE than Darwin ever did. You know, the little things, like cells, DNA,   
   mutations and so on that Darwin had no real knowledge of. Quoting Darwin is   
   a an appeal to someone who hasn't been an authority on the subject for over   
   a century. Not only that. You discredit your own authority by calling him a   
   pseudoscientist. That makes your first attempt a very hillariously poorly   
   executed fallacy. I just might have to get the popcorn out!   
      
   >   
   > The Bible shows that life forms were created independently of each   
   > other. ...   
      
   The Bible doesn't 'show' anything about the origin of lifeforms. The Bible   
   is a book full of old tales, written a long time ago, by very poorly   
   educated goatherding desert dwellers.   
      
   > ... In other words, no transitional links. ...   
      
   Oh! You're a 'transitional forms denier'. Denying physical evidence that   
   contradicts a dogma is the hallmark of creationism and other pseudosciences.   
      
   You prefere to pick and choose from the scientific smorgasbord. 'Old Earth?   
   Yes, please. Transitional forms? No, thank you. Microevolution? Maybe a   
   little.'   
      
   > ... Notice Darwin's comment:   
      
   Notice that whatever Darwin said, it has absolutely no impact on the   
   veracity and understanding of the ToE today.   
      
   >   
   > “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of   
   > such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such   
   > finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious   
   > and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (The   
   > Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin)   
   >   
   > As much work that Darwin did back then, he should have at least   
   > stumbled upon a variety of transitional fossils. HE DIDN'T. And that   
   > bothered him.   
      
   And the poor guy didn't understand that he'd already found them.   
      
   >   
   > Of the billions of life forms that had ever lived, The ground should   
   > be bursting at the seams with transitional fossils, millions of them.   
   > But they are not just there in the fossil record.   
      
   You seem to believe, that 'transitional forms' are somehow special forms,   
   weired and obvious, easy to spot. Crocoducklike grotesques. I'm not going to   
   walk you through the whole ordeal, but look at it this way. Every single   
   fossil ever found is a transitional form. You are as well. Freeze time and   
   look at what is living on Earth right at any moment. Millions of species.   
   Good, old fashioned, wholesome, family orientated species. Species you can   
   point to in the Childrens Illustrated Bible without blushing. Species that   
   future paleontologists will regard as transitional forms (and future   
   creationist will deny have ever existed.)   
      
   > ... The small amount   
   > they claim today, in no way, supports the macroevolutionary theory.   
   > They play 'musical bones' with their alleged evidence, to make things   
   > appear to come from one another. And they get absurd; dinosaurs to   
   > birds. Watch out for that T-Robin!   
      
   Why do accept an old Earth, but not macroevolution, when it is the same   
   science used to reach the conclusions?   
      
      
   >   
   > So in review, the Bible says each life form was created independently   
   > of each other, thus no transitional life forms. The alleged fossil   
   > record shows very little transitional life forms. Way too small to   
   > have had it happened that way.   
      
   And I have showed you that you look at it the wrong way.   
      
   > >   
   > >> ... The Bible is closer to supporting the   
   > >> fossil record, than the macroevolution advocates ever were.   
   > >   
   > >Again, I recommend that you back up your claims with evidence and not   
   > >mere   
   > >assertions.   
   >   
   > See above concerning transitional life forms.   
      
   Where you appeal to the wrong athorities, show an archaic and useless   
   understanding of species and transitions from one to the other, and where   
   you quote from ancient, non-scientific texts.   
      
      
   >   
   > Another thing in the fossil record is the abrupt sudden appearance of   
   > all different kinds of life forms:   
   >   
   (snip Darwin)   
      
   You simply have to understand that quotes from neither the Bible nor   
   'Origin' get you nowhere on your search for 'true scientific evidence'.   
      
   > So the Bible shows God created all those life forms apparently within   
   > a short span of time. ...   
      
   You're begging the question again. The Bible doesn't "show". The stories in   
   the Bible are tales. Scientific papers in Science "show" this or that.   
      
   > ... The fossil records shows multi-life forms ...   
      
   What are "multi-life forms"? Do you mean 'multicellular life forms'?   
      
      
   > suddenly appearing in the fossil record, thus supporting the Bible's   
   > account over that theory.   
      
   And all the stuff that doesn't support the biblical tale, either doesn't   
   exist (like transitional forms) or can't happen because Darwin, the   
   pseudoscientists from 150 years ago, said so himself!   
      
   >   
   > >   
   (snip)   
      
   >   
   > Also notice:   
   >   
   > “In the 1967 publication, The Fossil Record, . . . jointly sponsored   
   > by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological   
   > Association of England . . . some 120 scientists, all specialists,   
   > prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present   
   > the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500   
   > groups. . . .   
   >   
   > “A conclusive generalization drawn from these charts is as follows:   
   > Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)