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

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] HomEvRe: AIDS Warning

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    Hi tin, ... From: tinroad66 To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 7:34 AM Subject: [creation_evolution_debate]
    Message 1 of 335 , Sep 30, 2003
      Hi tin,
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: tinroad66
      Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 7:34 AM
      Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] HomEvRe: AIDS Warning


      >     >tin:   Laurie can you think of any good reason why hominids
      >     >are never found below the K-T boundary and dinosaurs are never
      >     >found above it ?
      >     >     >
      >     >
      >     LA>  That has never been established at all, of course. Dr.
      >     Derek Ager, a mate of the late Prof.S.J. Gould and a
      >     Punctuationist, has written that;
      >     >     -------------------
      >     >
      >     LA>  For that matter iridium seems to turn up in places which
      >     >    have a wide variety of evolutionary ages and the "very
      >     >    clear boundary" is more than likely an illusion! i.e.
      >     >
      >     >        "Jaeger (1986) maintained that (to quote his English
      >     >     summary):
      >     >
      >     >             "Iridium anomolies and extinctions of
      >     >          organisms in earth history are two fundamentally
      >     >          different phenomena. The alleged sudden mass
      >     >          mortality at the C/T boundary is an illusion."
      >     >
      >     >     (The New Catastrophism, Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of
      >     >     Geology, University College of Swansea, 1993, p. 190)
      >     >     =====================
      >     >
      >     >
      >     LA>        Clearly then you are just blundering again

         LA>   The following may help;
      ---------------------------------------
       
       Since 1840, there have been many rock formations discovered
      with fossils completely out of order according to the
      geologic column --- like Precambrain setting on dinosaur-age
      Cretaceous --- but these have been either explained away or
      simply ignored. Regardless of these serious problems, the
      question of the validity of the geologic column will not be
      addressed here. Rather, the standard column will be used as
      the basis for discussing the fossil evidence since all natural
      history museums use it in the dating, classification and
      study of fossils.
       
      [ . . . . . ]

       Darwin wrote: The abrupt manner in which whole groups of 
      species appear in certain formations has been urged by
      several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the
      belief of the transmutation of species. If numerous species,
      belonging to the same genera or families, have really
      started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the
      theory of evolution through natural selection.
       
              For the development by this means of the
      group of forms all of which are (according to
      the theory) descended from some one progenitor,
      must have been an extremely slow process;
      and the progenitors must have lived long
      before their modified descendants.
      (Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, Avenel, 1979, p.309)
       
       (Darwin's Enigma, Fossils and Other Problems, Luther D.
      Sunderland, 1988, p.43/44).
      =====================
       
      >  Since the "New and General Theory of Evolution" came in by Gould and Eldredge in the 1980s, then Darwin's theory is "effectively dead" in, SPITE of its persistence as TEXTBOOK orthodoxy.
       
         It seems that you have somehow been able to come to terms with such facts and evidence! Now that it has been pointed out to you, it is your clear duty to "pocket your pride" and seek a reconciliation with your Christian parents, while there is still time!
       
       
      L.K. Appleton
      lappleto@...
       
      From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
      to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
      creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
      (Chandra Wickramasinghe)
       
    • Leon Albert
      ... From: Leon Albert To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] HomEvRe:
      Message 335 of 335 , Oct 16 11:43 AM
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:58 AM
        Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] HomEvRe: AIDS Warning

         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:50 AM
        Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] HomEvRe: AIDS Warning

        Hi Leon,
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 6:39 AM
        Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] HomEvRe: AIDS Warning
        >
        Leon: You're finally RIGHT, Laurie! Virtually ALL biological scientists "'AGREE together that the Creationists are wrong!" They also "AGREE" that the Creationists are "delighted" because of their total ignorance of the evidence and its scientific explanation.
        >
        LA>  Since real science is NOT about "agreement" as such, but about demonstratable facts, through  the process of the "repeatable test" then, you have once again "shot yourself in the foot".  By now, of course, you "don't have a leg to stand on!"
         
        Leon: Wrong yet again, Laurie. "Real science" is VERY MUCH about working out "agreements" between COMMUNITIES of individual expert scientists working within their various fields of expertise.
        >  
        LA>  I accept your effective admission that evolution is NOT science, but little more than agreements between dogmatic evolutionists!
         
        Leon: Wrong yet again, Laurie - the closest thing to "dogma" in evolutionary science is the SAME basic assumptions that govern ALL science.
         
        >
        Leon: The scientific theory of biological evolution IS TESTED REPEATEDLY in a great diversity of ways, over and over, again and again.
        >
         LA> Indeed it has, been tested and has constantly FAILED every test, with the data found constantly supporting the Creation science position.
         
        Leon: Wishful thinking blinds you to the truth, Laurie.
         
        Darwin himself tested it in breeding pigeons and failed. 
         
        Leon: Completely wrong! Darwin found ARTIFICAL selection with pigeons MIRRORED NATURAL selection.
         
        Darwin also admitted that the very fossil record was the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory, because it FAILED to provide the necessary millions and millions of transitional forms.   He predicted that they would be found after much more searching.  That has NOT been the case and thus Punctuated Equilibria has been invented!
         
        Leon: Wrong yet AGAIN, Laurie! Darwin devoted an entire chapter and more to explaining the very flawed nature of "the fossil record." It is a "record" with well over 99% of life forms MISSING from it. VERY FEW forms fossilize!
         
        >
        Leon: This has been done SO successfully, SO MANY times, that it has been elevated to the status of being the very paradigm of ALL biological sciences, in their wide diversity of manifestations.  
        >
          LA>  Just the opposite.  It has been so "elevated" in SPITE of its total failure to provide ANY valid evidence. What has constantly been found supports the Creation science position. THAT is why even the evolutionists admit that the evidence has delighted the Creationists!
         
        Leon: Blatant nonsense. EVEN the BIBLE-BELIEVING geologists who FOUNDED geology, abandoned their beliefs DUE TO the OBVIOUS geological and paleontological EVIDENCE that hit them between their eyes!
        >
        Leon:  And, here's some real NEWS for you, Laurie. The community of biological scientists are in universal "agreement" that your "Creationism" is not only not even remotely qualified as a "scientific" explanation, the entire conceptual basis of it is positively ANTI-scientific. Supernaturalism is the antithesis of NATURAL science. 
        >
         LA>  No matter how much evolutionists "agree" about evolution, they STILL have failed totally to provide any repeatable experiments to make it a scientific fact.  "Agreement" is the 'stuff' of the Political scene and NOT of science. Science is based on the repeatable test which confirms or refutes all "agreements"!  Evolution has failed on all counts!
         
        Leon: The nonsense NEVER ceases with you, Laurie. While hands-on repeatable experimental manipulations are ONE MODE of observation in science, they are not the ONLY MODE of repeatable observation. You have just CONTRADICTED your own fallacious assertion with the ADMISSION that it is scientific "AGREEMENTS" that are open to confirmation or refutation! There must ALSO BE scientific "AGREEMENTS" on the alleged confirmations or refutations!
         
        Addendum: It also occured to me that creationism ITSELF is ALSO very MUCH grounded in "AGREEMENTS" on the part of the COMMUNITY of creationists in REACTION AGAINST the  COMMUNITY AGREEMENTS of yet OTHER religions, including OTHER brands of Christianity! 
         
        L.K. Appleton
        lappleto@...
         
        From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
        to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
        creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
        (Chandra Wickramasinghe)
         
        Leon: (For the umpteeth time)
        Laurie is ONCE AGAIN guilty of one of the most BASIC argumentative fallacies, the fallacy of "arguing from authority" using an "authority" who IS NOT a legitimate authority in the subject at issue (here, the subject of the philosophy of science)! He might as well be citing Mickey Mouse as his "authority." Beyond all of this, ONCE AGAIN, Wickramasinghe's CONCEPT of "creation" is RADICALLY oppossed to Laurie's, which Wickramasinghe considers to be utterly ridiculous, VERY primitive MYTHOLOGY! Wickramasinghe is a MIGHTY STRANGE "authority" for Laurie to be cozying up to as a bedfellow, in more than one way. Laurie Appleton has quite aptly been labled the "Applebot," for like an unthinking ROBOT, he mechanically just keeps on spewing out the SAME inappropiate second-hand "regurgiquotes" over and over. He continues to do this DISPITE REPEATED responses that clearly rebut them in detail. He mindlessly IGNORES the rebutals, for a counter to them would require THOUGHT, the capacity for which, Laurie is sorely lacking, having surrendered his mind to the authoritarian, emotion-serving thought of his fundamentalist mythology. 
        Leon  Albert


        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        creation_evolution_debate-unsubscribe@egroups.com

        ****Invite your friends to join the group!****
        This group is open to all and anyone can join this group by sending a blank email to:
        creation_evolution_debate-subscribe@...
        and then respondng to the email sent to them from egroups.





        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.