Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3899RE: Message not approved: Fossil Gaps 3

Expand Messages
  • Dave Oldridge
    Jun 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Behold:
      The self-made moron thinks questions (for which he lacks answers) are
      insults.

      Apparently he has no faith in his own so-called message, so he blocks any
      real refutations of his LIES.

      Typical creationist cult behaviour. These people have no use for honesty
      whatever and will not tolerate it in their own ranks.

      And that's the TRUTH they do not want known.

      So apparently tinroad6g actually believes that the creationist rank and file
      who read his list ARE that ignorant and he proposes to keep them that way by
      shielding them from any truth. Of course, the chance of him having ANY
      actual member who reads ONLY his list is pretty small. It must be very hard
      to be a paranoid with such delusions of adequacy. Of course, you can tell
      he is a devil worshipper at heart by just seeing what a nasty person his
      possessing demon makes him into.


      --

      Dave Oldridge





      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: notify@yahoogroups.com [mailto:notify@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of tinroad6g
      > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:50 AM
      > To: Dave Oldridge
      > Subject: Message not approved: Fossil Gaps 3
      >
      >
      > insults
      >
      >
      > > Ho hum. If this is the quality of your evidence, you need to read a
      > > dictionary. Evidence starts with E.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > The FACTS:
      > >
      > > Species-to-species transitions are rare (not non-existent) in the
      > > fossil record. Now that we know that speciation can develop in as
      > > little as 20 generations, we know that this is to be expected. Now,
      > > what is there about archaeopteryx that makes you think it is NOT an
      > > intermediated between modern birds and ancient theropods?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > As Gould pointed out long ago, there are few fossils that are NOT
      > > transitions if you consider higher taxonomic levels.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Are creationists really this ignorant? Can they be fooled by such
      > > transparent lies every time? If that is so, can I interest some of
      > > you in a couple of nice toll bridges in Eastern Canada?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Dave Oldridge
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > From: DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM@yahoogroups.com
      > > [mailto:DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > pahu81
      > > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:55 AM
      > > To: DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM] Fossil Gaps 3
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Fossil Gaps 3
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum
      > > (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no
      > > evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson's recent book,
      > > Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration
      > > of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or
      > > living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an
      > > artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where
      > > would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it,
      > > and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead
      > > the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to
      > > contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a
      > > palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical
      > > problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say
      > > that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each
      > > type organism was derived." I will lay it on the line-there is not one
      > > such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Copy of
      letter,
      > dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [From <http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html>
      > > "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]