> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:59:59 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com
> spake thusly:
>
>

>> On Jun 22, 6:27 pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>

>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT),
>>> roym...@gmail.com spake thusly:
>>>

>>>> I had always understood that the theory of evolution
>>>> is flawed since there are no missing-links to be found:
>>>> but I've recently come across this piece by a well known
>>>> scientist in the media, here
>>>> http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/science/podcast/gmis/gmis20080605.mp3
>>>> (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/)
>>>> who cites some examples to the contrary.

>>> No, he doesn't. And as to that other link in another
>>> message, no, those are not transitionals. Not even
>>> close, dude!

>> It was only a piece by a scientist well known in
>> the media in my country. I dunno if his take is
>> challenged by the scientific community regards
>> transitionals, or if they have different opinions
>> in this field.
>>
>> The EncBrit says "... The transitional forms are
>> well preserved as fossils, as are many other kinds
>> of extinct horses that evolved in different directions
>> and left no living descendants. Paleontologists
>> have also been able to recover and reconstruct
>> radical transitions in form and function." and goes
>> on with an examples of reptiles, horses, and others.

>
> All of which are a lie. For example, the supposed
> "horse evolution" has been debunked for many
> years now and it didn't make sense to begin with,
> using the fossils they did.
>
> Furthermore, reconstruction does not mean all of
> the bones were present. They take artistic liberties,
> just as they do with the supposed "ancestors of man",
> regarding fur, etc., when there is no way to tell that.
>
> There is no such thing as proven transitionals,
> yet they keep telling people there are, even
> though their supposed "chains of evolution"
> have been debunked and they know that.
>
>

>> Other examples are given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
>> which I take to be macroevolutions.

>
> First of all, "Wikipedia" is edited by the public.
> So basically, anything they want to say, they say
> and you think it's an actual encyclopedia. But
> even if it were one, that does not make it true.
>
> Secondly, I do not debate web pages and it is clear
> to me, that you do not understand what they are
> saying and yet, claim proof!
>
> There is no such thing as a chain of fossils proving
> macroevolution from one kind to another. It simply
> does not exist. They are showing you artists drawings
> and claiming they are transitionals. They are not
> however, proving that they are transitionals.
>
> As one example that you had mentioned, which was
> archaeopteryx, that is nothing but a perching bird.
>
> I will quote Feduccia a few times, as he is an expert
> in the fields required.
>
> “It’s biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such
> large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy,
> balancing tails.” - Alan Feduccia
>
> They also purposely don't tell you about all of the
> differences between birds and dinosaurs, such as
> the lung structure, hollow bones, they way it breathes,
> etc., etc.. It is flat out impossible!
>
> But for people like you, all you seem to need for proof is,
> "They said so and hey, look at the cool drawings that jump
> all of the millions and billions of steps in between the two,
> which means they proved it!"
>
> “Archaeopteryx was clearly a well developed bird,
> with true feathers.” - Alan Feduccia
>
> “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into
> an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not.
> It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of
> ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
>
>

>>> Transitionals are not "flowers to flowers", et al.
>>> That's microevolution, which is a fact of science.
>>> You are claiming macroevolution, which is a
>>> fantasy of scientists who wish to eliminate God.

>> Thanks for that. I didn't realize there was a distinction
>> between macro and micro-evolution in these discussions.

>
> You're welcome, but if you don't know, why are you
> so quick to jump on their bandwagon and claim they
> actually have transitionals, when you don't even know
> what is required to declare them such? Could it be
> that you are eager to join the crowd, because you
> were taught that it's ridiculous to question evolution?
> Could it be because people tend to worship atheistic
> scientists and treat them like gods who can never
> be wrong and you don't wish to have to defend God?
> Could it also be that you just want the easy path?
> After all, isn't it amazing that you quickly, without
> knowledge, claim that what some web page says
> is true and find yourself arguing with Christians,
> instead of those who mock God's word?
>
> "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and
> broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there
> are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate
> and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there
> are few who find it." - Matthew 7:13-14
>
>

>> The article in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
>> says that scientists and creationists use macroevolution
>> and microevolution terms differently.

>
> That is true today, because after being repeatedly
> embarrassed, evolutionists have tried to redefine
> the word "macroevolution" to mean microevolution,
> so that when they hold up examples of macroevolution,
> they can falsely claim that they have proved that
> macroevolution occurs. This is a fact and it is just
> like they try to do with the two terms, "abiogenesis"
> and "spontaneous generation", which are indeed
> the same thing, as a scientific dictionary will state.
> But ever since spontaneous generation was debunked,
> they now try to claim that abiogenesis is a totally
> different thing. They also now try to claim that
> abiogenesis is not part of evolution, because they
> are embarrassed that abiogenesis was debunked
> as well. Life can only come from life, period and
> they know that.
>
> You also assume that web pages written by biased
> evolutionists, who are nobodies and are just like
> and often are, the atheists who post in these groups,
> are true. Why would you do that?
>
> Abiogenesis is based on a claim a long time ago,
> that since maggots were seen on rotting meat
> that was left out, that life was springing from the
> dead meat. Of course, now we know that this is
> not true, but evolutionists, in their embarrassment,
> try to claim that abiogenesis is not based on that
> faulty conclusion, when it most certainly is and
> they know it! But they hang onto it, because
> it's all they've got! But keep cornering them
> and you will see how quickly they insult you
> and try to turn the tables and they will never,
> never, answer your direct questions by showing
> proof for their position!
>
> Of course, then comes the claim of, "science doesn't
> prove anything", to dodge the request for proof,
> since they claim it's proved. So when you corner
> them on what they claim, they try to pretend they're
> backing off and saying, "It's just as proved as gravity".
> In other words, it's the straw man that says that if you
> dispute it, then you're disputing gravity.
>
> Now ask them to prove that it's just as proved as
> gravity and more insults fly out.
>
> This is the game they play, but all they will ever
> show you, is microevolution and example that
> they claim are macroevolution, but cannot prove
> them to be such.
>
> All they need to show, is a chain of fossils, that start
> with one kind and end up with another. And no,
> that does not mean two drawings and then imagining
> all of the steps in between! Imagination is not the
> same as scientific data that proves macroevolution!
> And if it's so certain that it happens, then they
> would not have to offer their imagination as their
> best proof! :)
>
> The truth is, that in years of requesting a single chain,
> they have not provided one to anyone, ever, anywhere!
>
> So they claim that we wouldn't have the fossils anyway,
> because they would decay, etc..
>
> Darwin said that fossils are what would prove evolution.
> There is no other way! They don't have them!
>
> Darwin also said, well over 100 years ago, that the thing
> that would destroy his idea, is if the fossils were not found.
> Guess what? They haven't been and yet, people are
> hanging on to it!
>
> And don't let anyone fool you! His book sold like hot cakes
> without any evidence, because people wanted to reject
> God and they weren't shy about admitting it! They do
> the same thing, for the same reason today!
>
> And isn't it interesting how many of them told me I never
> read Darwin's book (when I actually did) and then, when
> I pointed out what he said, then, all of the sudden, they
> didn't subscribe to his idea about evolution. So why bring
> up his book then? Hello???
>
> They claim that man and ape came from a common ancestor.
> But when you ask them to show it to you, they are forced to
> admit that they don't have it. When you tell them that it
> means that they then can't prove what they claimed, they
> then say, "Maybe it was a sea monkey and that's why we
> don't have any fossils from it yet.".
>
> Yes, they actually say that!!! And notice that what they
> throw out there is "maybe", "could be", etc., etc.. That
> does not equal proof! That equals imagination!
>
> Evolutionists assume it's true and proceed from there!
> Yet they try to criticize Christians, claiming we do that!
>
>
>
> Science REQUIRES that one of the two following happens:
>
> 1) Direct observation - Never happened for macroevolution.
>
> 2) Repeated experimentation with repeatable results. -
> Never happened for macroevolution.
>
> Therefore, it is NOT science!
>
>

>> On-the-other-hand, I discovered CreationWiki
>> http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page wherein says
>> "Evolutionists remain unable to provide any empirical
>> evidence that a new plant or animal species has ever
>> originated as a result of the gradual accumulation of
>> DNA through natural selection, producing new types
>> of beneficial structures or functions which are totally
>> lacking in the ancestral species" .

>
> And that is true! A creature cannot do what it does not
> already have the programming to do! These idiot, moron
> evolutionists claim macroevolution and at the same time,
> claim that we can only do what our DNA allows us to!
>
> Evolution is a joke! It is laughable! And I am familiar
> with the various sciences involved and I have indeed
> researched this for years and I have indeed had many
> debates (many, many) with atheists and never, not once,
> was any of them able to do anything more than try to
> turn it around and claim that I have to prove that it
> did not happen! That is the sum total of their proof
> for evolution! "Prove that it did not happen.". That's it!
> They will keep trying to argue in circles and hate me,
> because they know I see through it!
>
> Their supposed "unbiased, scientific discussions" turn
> into, "Prove God exists!" and "Prove that a bunch of
> small changes cannot turn into a macroevolution!".
>
> This is all they have, dude! trust God! He is true!
>
> And btw, remember, that the evolutionist thinks so
> highly of himself, yet, he fails to realize that if indeed
> evolution is true, it means that man is not the last
> step and is just a piece of a chain!
>
> And this means that those who claim to believe the Bible,
> do not believe it, which should be obvious anyway, but
> the point is, that man is not the last step and so, the
> Bible isn't true, since it says that it is man that God
> came to save, when in reality, millions more of types
> of creatures will be evolved in our "chain".
>
> But hey, they shouldn't let the fact that this "chain"
> doesn't exist stop them, right? And why let the fact
> that the Bible says the opposite of evolution stop one
> from claiming to be a good Christian, right? After all,
> who cares if evolution says that Jesus would have
> been nothing more than a made over monkey, right?
>