Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-09-2002, 11:56 AM

No, not if the sequence is within the predicted creationist model of speciation within a kind.
Creationists, for instance, believe that the grizzly and polar bears descended from a common ancestor. They accept limited speciation within a range of kind, and to this date, that is all the fossil record and other data shows.

Daggah · 03-09-2002, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
to this date, that is all the fossil record and other data shows.

LOL, your ignorance is showing Randman. Again, what about the genetic and microbiotic evidence I have posted? What about the drastic (and very compelling) similiarities between cytochrome C sequences of various organisms? What about similarities in junk DNA? You see, the fossil record isn't our only source of evidence, and you're even wrong about the fossil record, as has been explained to you REPEATEDLY at this point in time.

pseudobug · 03-09-2002, 02:43 PM

You guys don't get it--randman is terminally afflicted with Bible-thumper stupidity.

He has Jeebus in him. He has claimed to hear people speaking in tongues and see dental amalgam turned to gold.

He is a Southern Bible-belt fundie.

I've seen all of these arguments before. The same series of lies, the same quotes out of context, the same fill in the blank "transitional explanation.

No amount of evidence you show him, or no amount of direct quotes out of context you expose that he posts will sway his view of the "righetousness" of the "scholars" in AiG who have "superior models" and conduct science with more "integrity", than the "lying", "dishonest" evolutionists who are conning lay people with their "theory of lies".

Every argument refuted will only result in more spounting of inane posts founded on the horseshit in AiG. It's like cutting the heads off the Hydra.

Kevin Dorner · 03-09-2002, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pseudobug:
He is a Southern Bible-belt fundie.

I figured that out from his use of "y'all" in his apologetics.

ps418 · 03-09-2002, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
No, not if the sequence is within the predicted creationist model of speciation within a kind.

Its funny you should say that, given your total inability to explain even what a "kind" is and how they are diagnosed, much less to present a "creationist model of speciation"!

But let's give you another chance.

What is a "kind"?

What is the "creationist model of speciation"?

I'm especially interested in how the "creationist model of speciation" explains how all the species inhabiting the earth currently could have originated via speciation from the inhabitants of Noah's boat, in a mere 4500 years, without leaving a shred of fossil or genetic evidence.

Patrick

Kosh · 03-09-2002, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pseudobug:
You guys don't get it--randman is terminally afflicted with Bible-thumper stupidity.

Ah, scientifically called Rectal Encephalitus

Quote:

Every argument refuted will only result in more spounting of inane posts founded on the horseshit in AiG. It's like cutting the heads off the Hydra.

As I suggested... DNFTT

HRG · 03-09-2002, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[QB]No, not if the sequence is within the predicted creationist model of speciation within a kind.

Please excuse, my native language not English. Non capisco "k-i-n-d". Please give definition.

HRG.

RufusAtticus · 03-09-2002, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
No, not if the sequence is within the predicted creationist model of speciation within a kind.
Creationists, for instance, believe that the grizzly and polar bears descended from a common ancestor. They accept limited speciation within a range of kind, and to this date, that is all the fossil record and other data shows.

Actually, I haven't heard of any fossil evidence for the grizzly bear-polar bear relationship. Could you please provide some since you claim that it is supported by the fossil record. Weren't you the one arguing that such transitions are not even recorded in the fossil record? How do you resolve the contradiction?

It's funny how you make comments in this thread, but are incapable of defending "kinds" when real questions are presented to you.

Will you ever answer my questions in the "Challenge to Those who beleive in Kinds" thread? If you understand "kinds" enough to use it in these thread, then it should be child's play for you to answer my questions.

-RvFvS

randman · 03-10-2002, 11:29 AM

I never claimed squat concerning polar bears and grizzlies. I quoted what YEC beleive. I beleive they are probably right, but I have stated repeatedly that I am new to creationism as a science, and am not qualified to debate their models, except in a few areas perhaps.
Those are areas dealing with evolutionary theory, such as stating the fossil record proves evolution, which are lies.
I am here simply to expose lies. I may remark on creationism, but primarily within the context of exposing an evolutionist lie.
For instance, if a piece of data fits creationism as much as evolution, then that data cannot be said to prove evolution, and to do so is a lie.

Daggah · 03-10-2002, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:


LOL, your ignorance is showing Randman. Again, what about the genetic and microbiotic evidence I have posted? What about the drastic (and very compelling) similiarities between cytochrome C sequences of various organisms? What about similarities in junk DNA? You see, the fossil record isn't our only source of evidence, and you're even wrong about the fossil record, as has been explained to you REPEATEDLY at this point in time.

Getting tired of repeating myself, troll...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-09-2002, 11:56 AM	#71
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	No, not if the sequence is within the predicted creationist model of speciation within a kind. Creationists, for instance, believe that the grizzly and polar bears descended from a common ancestor. They accept limited speciation within a range of kind, and to this date, that is all the fossil record and other data shows.

03-09-2002, 02:43 PM	#73
pseudobug Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: land of confusion Posts: 178	You guys don't get it--randman is terminally afflicted with Bible-thumper stupidity. He has Jeebus in him. He has claimed to hear people speaking in tongues and see dental amalgam turned to gold. He is a Southern Bible-belt fundie. I've seen all of these arguments before. The same series of lies, the same quotes out of context, the same fill in the blank "transitional explanation. No amount of evidence you show him, or no amount of direct quotes out of context you expose that he posts will sway his view of the "righetousness" of the "scholars" in AiG who have "superior models" and conduct science with more "integrity", than the "lying", "dishonest" evolutionists who are conning lay people with their "theory of lies". Every argument refuted will only result in more spounting of inane posts founded on the horseshit in AiG. It's like cutting the heads off the Hydra.

03-10-2002, 11:29 AM	#79
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I never claimed squat concerning polar bears and grizzlies. I quoted what YEC beleive. I beleive they are probably right, but I have stated repeatedly that I am new to creationism as a science, and am not qualified to debate their models, except in a few areas perhaps. Those are areas dealing with evolutionary theory, such as stating the fossil record proves evolution, which are lies. I am here simply to expose lies. I may remark on creationism, but primarily within the context of exposing an evolutionist lie. For instance, if a piece of data fits creationism as much as evolution, then that data cannot be said to prove evolution, and to do so is a lie.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.