Atheists on the march in America

[nanoanomaly]

Givemeliberty wrote:

She talks so much Bullsht she can't keep up with it.
<quoted text>

Like I can remember exactly what page it was on...out of hundreds of thousands of them? That's expecting too much.

OTOH, you could very easily prove the dimensions you claimed earlier. >:)

Show us proof or admit you are a liar.

[nanoanomaly]

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Name one, missy.

The delusion is large in that one.

[Gstspkr]

Indy 300M wrote:

<quoted text>
So religion doesn't drive us back to the dark ages. Look at the muslim world. No thanks.
Really, though, it's not so much evangalizing as it is making our presence known, so others don't feel isolated and we can collectively demand our equal rights and a secular government.

You are full of yourself. You are a revolutionary Marxist who believes you have the right to oppress other people and control every aspect of their lives. You believe its fair to take others possessions as long as it gets filtered through your greasy fingers. You believe only you have the answers, through political science, to all of society's ills and don't give a damn to problems that don't fit your drop of perspective. You feel only you have the right to dictate what is seen and heard in the public square. You are only able to embrace what is spoon fed to you, and demand all others must eat from the same pile of crap you do. Ultimately, all you seek is conflict and ultimately you will find it.

[Gstspkr]

Givemeliberty wrote:

You'd like scientists better if they would just say Jesus made everything right half wit?
<quoted text>

Personally, I would like them to objectively seek answers, instead of government funding to substantiate elitist political agendas. Unfortunately, the scientific method is only a tool to be thrown around while the real objective is the funding ie MONEY.

[-Skeptic-]

Gstspkr wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally, I would like them to objectively seek answers, instead of government funding to substantiate elitist political agendas. Unfortunately, the scientific method is only a tool to be thrown around while the real objective is the funding ie MONEY.

You scammers had a free ride for centuries, now pay some taxes like the businesses that you are.

[Givemeliberty]

One can easily enough stroll through and read all the times I have factually crushed you. Most recently I busted you on your... Sniff sniff I have less than a year to live because of this disease that can't be cured. So Nan why are you wasting time on topix if you have less than a year to live? Uh!! I was cured already so there!

:shakes head, sighs:

So now onto the newest screw up on your part, you were going to post the so called atheist doctrines. Any luck putting them together half wit?

It's ok if you need to email your preacher to get them again, we will just go ahead and laugh at your inevitable miserable failure to come.

No seriously anytime now.

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Like I can remember exactly what page it was on...out of hundreds of thousands of them? That's expecting too much.
OTOH, you could very easily prove the dimensions you claimed earlier. >:)
Show us proof or admit you are a liar.

[Givemeliberty]

There are a small number of scientists like the people at the DI who do as you are saying.

Gstspkr wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally, I would like them to objectively seek answers, instead of government funding to substantiate elitist political agendas. Unfortunately, the scientific method is only a tool to be thrown around while the real objective is the funding ie MONEY.

[polymath257]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
Common ancestry? You mean like the fish Coelacanth for example, supposedly extinct 70 million years ago and presented by evolutionists as a "transitional form" between marine and land creatures? It was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since? LOL!

Good example!

1.The modern Coelacanth is not the same as any fossil species. The species have changed over time.

2. The modern Coelacanth lives in deep sea areas which are unlikely to produce fossils that we can collect.

3. The theory of evolution does not *require* species to change over time. The change that species undergo is driven by changes in the environment. if the environment is stable, the species tend to be stable also.

There is no reason to believe that fish were radically different eons ago from what they are now. To suggest that they lived long enough in shallow water to turn gills into lungs is absurd hence the lack of transitional forms. Fish are fish. It was true then and it's true now.

We do have transitional forms from fish to amphibian. A good example is acanthostega.

[BBSting]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Even more so, does every dead animal (or plant, fungus, etc) have an equal likelihood of becoming a fossil? Is the rate of fossilization such that we would expect a continuous record? Do the 'gaps' match what we know about fossilization in general and the likelihood of fossilization in various environments? Are species that live in environments that we would predict to higher rates of fossilization better represented in the record?

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D.-- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib. The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.

[BBSting]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Jesus waved around his magical fish billions of years ago and made the universe right?
Google up evolution human tailbone before you humiliate yourself further.
You're welcome half wit.
<quoted text>

“Known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent’ and ‘the Huxley of Germany,’ Ernst Heinrick Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary ‘family tree’ for mankind. His frauds included descriptions and detailed pictures of protoplasmic organisms called Monera that never existed, a non-existent “speechless ape-man,” and illustrations and descriptions of a non-existent “fish stage” and "embryonic tails" in human embryos. Ernst Haeckel later partially confessed." -[Russell Grigg,“Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt,” Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36

[Givemeliberty]

Yawn. And?

BBSting wrote:

<quoted text>
“Known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent’ and ‘the Huxley of Germany,’ Ernst Heinrick Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary ‘family tree’ for mankind. His frauds included descriptions and detailed pictures of protoplasmic organisms called Monera that never existed, a non-existent “speechless ape-man,” and illustrations and descriptions of a non-existent “fish stage” and "embryonic tails" in human embryos. Ernst Haeckel later partially confessed." -[Russell Grigg,“Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt,” Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36

[postscript]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Good example!
1.The modern Coelacanth is not the same as any fossil species. The species have changed over time.
2. The modern Coelacanth lives in deep sea areas which are unlikely to produce fossils that we can collect.
3. The theory of evolution does not *require* species to change over time. The change that species undergo is driven by changes in the environment. if the environment is stable, the species tend to be stable also.
<quoted text>
We do have transitional forms from fish to amphibian. A good example is acanthostega.

There are always two sides to a coin:

The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.

Dr. Colin Patterson, an eminent palaeontologist explains why have these fossils fail to qualify as missing links....

"As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."

In other words, fossils such as Acanthostega are regarded by some evolutionary enthusiasts as "missing links" not because they actually are, but because they are believed to be. If belief is all it takes to make a truth in your world, you should have no problem accepting the "belief" that the universe was created by a god.

TalkOrigins? You're kidding, right? That website is known as "the uneducated atheist's Bible." It's not only woefully out-of-date but seriously misleading.

[postscript]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Jesus waved around his magical fish billions of years ago and made the universe right?
Google up evolution human tailbone before you humiliate yourself further.
You're welcome half wit.
<quoted text>

I'll take this as a yes. Your parents do have tails. LOL!

On the one hand, you condemn the Christian version of creation as a lie and on the other, you support your conclusion with myths about embryonic tails and life springing from dead matter and worse, you expect to appear credible! You are not just confused - you're deluded.

[Thinking]

We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll take this as a yes. Your parents do have tails. LOL!
On the one hand, you condemn the Christian version of creation as a lie and on the other, you support your conclusion with myths about embryonic tails and life springing from dead matter and worse, you expect to appear credible! You are not just confused - you're deluded.

[Thinking]

You lack any edge.

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:

[BBSting]

Thinking wrote:

We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
<quoted text>

Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.

[postscript]

BBSting wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, but what you see is not what you suppose.

As in the theory of vestigial organs, which includes things that look like tails, egg yolk sacs and the suggestion of fish gills. This supposed evidence of man’s evolution from animals is utterly false and for a very logical reason. One cannot identify organs totally lacking in function.

In the journal Evolutionary Theory, the evolutionist biologist S.R. Scadding states:

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."

[Givemeliberty]

Isn't it sad how hard they work to remain enslaved to the superstitious beliefs of ancient Palestinians?

Thinking wrote:

We can see those "embryonic tails". They're fact.
<quoted text>

[Hedonist]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
There are always two sides to a coin:
The conclusion that the Acanthostega is a transitional form is based the "assumption" of macroevolution, and not on observational evidence of the bones in fins or fish actually changing into tetrapod limb bones.
...

Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".

The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.

The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.

Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.

[Buck Crick]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you really think evolution happens within an individual animal such that it could be "observed" actually changing? That's insane and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
But we don't even need to look at Acanthostega to consider "transitional" animals. ALL animals are always under environmental pressure to change and are ALWAYS "transitional". Even the one that don't appear to change much ove rdeep time are still by definition "transitional".
The insistence on "transitional fossils" is nothing more than a strawman fallacy created by creationists.
The very idea of "species" is a human categorization to make study of biology easier -- we made the word up. Animals themselves could care less how we try to divide them into discrete categories.
Look at the platypus or the walking catfish or countless other animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomic ranking system.

OK, I accept that you make things up.