In a message dated 4/19/00 9:32:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Gavin Phillips wrote:
>
> Many excellent quotations. Darwinian evolution has been repeatedly
discredited by several good books documenting the litany of missing chains
(not links).
>
> It is the holy grail of mainstream science to think that they are able to
explain the genesis of humankind. Evolution doesn't come close, but they will
desperately cling to it untill they can conjure up another theory which
allows them to explain everything scientifically.
>
> Darwiniian macro-evolution is a religion. It has never been observed or
repeated in a laboratory. Total nonsense. Gavin.
=======================
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you write.
I won't even bother to respond to such an absurdity,
because to do so might lead some half baked idiot to
think that there are two sides to this argument, when
there is no argument at all.
Whatever happened to your mind?
Joshua2
>>
Poor Joshua, have you already forgotten our little set-to a few months ago
about disarming Americans, and trailed into a debate about Darwinian
evolution. You are as ignorant now as you were then. There are two sides to
this argument. One side is losing very badly. The Darwinian theory of
macro-evolution is down and out-period.
Phillip Johnson, author of many books on this subject replied to my email
informing me that he has won every debate that he has had so far, many of
them with University professors. Guess how he wins every time? Because
Darwinian macro-evolution is complete and utter, unadulterated 100% BULLSHIT.
Below is a partial reminder of our little tête-à-tête a few months ago.
Gavin;
I do not practice any type of religion. I do not beleive in the bible
chapter and verse, the earth was made in 6 days etc. I know through reading
several books on evolution that it is complete nonsense with only a few bones
as "proof" that it happened.
>Joshua;
> This is entirely wrong. This is the pathetic defense of supernaturalists.
> Evolution is is a daily observable process. Also, you need to get yourself
> updated on the " Bones " issue. There are MANY almost complete fossil
> records to demonstrate the evolutionary process. I suggest you read " The
Beak
> of the Finch " for a clear and recent demonstration of evolution at work.
>
>
>Gavin;
>
>You are completely wrong and really should do far more research into the
glaring loopholes in your hypothesis before making an ass of yourself.
>
>There are obviously 100's of bones and skeletons of animals from millions of
>years ago. What evolutionists do not have, and they admit this, is the 1000's
>of transitional bones when one species changes into another species. As
>Phillip Johnson says in the article I have posted;
>
>"The most important is the fossil problem, because this is a direct record
of >the history of life on earth. If Darwinism were true, you would expect the
>fossil evidence to contain many examples of Darwinian evolution. You would
>expect to see fossils that really couldn't be understood except as
>transitions between one kind of organism and another... "
>
>"In reality, the fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to
>explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms
>that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms....In
>short, if evolution is the gradual, step-by-step transformation of one kind
>of thing into another, the outstanding feature of the fossil record is the
>absence of evidence for evolution."
>
>
>To try and get around this problem some evolutionists have proposed other
>theories which are just as ridiculous as gradualistic evolution. Richard
>Goldsmidt proposed the theory of "hopeful monsters" where one day a reptile
>would lay an egg and out popped a bird. Trouble is he would need another
>totally improbable event, another hopefull monster being hatched at the
same >time in the same area in order for them to breed. The other problem is
that
>there should be thousands of hopeless monsters littering the fossil record.
>There are none.
>
>Harvard University's Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium.
Gould >postulated that perhaps species remain in stasis (the same) for
millions of
>years. Then only a few isolated breeding groups change into different
>species. As Milton says;;
>
>"The difficulty with punctuated equilibrium is that it is wholly speculative
>and has been introduced simply to account for the lack of fossils that
ought >exist in the neo-Darwinist theory."
>
>Once again, there is no concrete proof for either hypothesis.
>
>
Not only books by Christian scientists, but books by scientists such as
>Michael Denton's, Evolution : A Theory in Crisis and the recent Darwin's
Black
Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe Assoc. Prof.
of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania in which Behe mounts
an insurmountable challenge to gradualistic evolution with his irreducibly
> > complex molecular machines (tens of thousands in nature)which are so
complicated (thousands of trillions against)it is impossible for Darwnian
gradualistic evolution to ecompass it. Also Darwin on Trial by Philip Johnson
and The Bone
Peddlars by Fry are also good critiques of Darwinian evolution.
>
Joshua;
> Lets clarify a few things here. These are refutations of Darwin's
> theory as written down over a century ago. Darwin believed that evolution
was
> gradualistic.
Many other evolutionists were not gradualists. They, however, were swept under
> the rug because their theories of a catastrophic evolutionary process
seemed to
> agree with the Bible's themes of catastrophism. So the scientists who did
see
> themselves as the standard for truth, poo pooed anything that resembled or
> buttressed religion. They were wrong. It turns out that evolution is
generally
> a steady state of being punctuated by sudden and catastrophic changes
> in the environment where some species or individuals survive the changes and
> others do not. There is an EXTENSIVE fossil record for MANY species going
> back hundreds of millions of years.
>
> So you may have these people able to prove that gradualism in evolution is
> crap, because it is, but it's downright stupid to claim that evolution isn't
> real.
>
>
>Gavin;
>
>They are both wrong. For your information there are many evolutionists,
>including zoologist Stephen Dawkins who still adhere to gradualstic
Darwinian evolution. As I said before, there is no substantial evidence to
prove
>punctuated equilibrium, that is why many evolutionists do not advocate it.
>Both gradualistic evolution and punctuated equilibrium are unprovable
>hypothesis regarding one species completely changing into another species.
I have already defined the fossil problem. Here is more from Johnson;
>"how do you know it's true if it isn't recorded in the fossils? Where is the
>proof? It's not in genetics. And it's not in the molecular evidence, which
>shows similarities between organisms but doesn't tell you how those
>similarities came about. So the proof isn't anywhere..."
>
> > If you had read anything on the subject you would know that there is no
> > unequivocal proof that we evolved from apes or that reptiles turn into
birds
> > etc. One christian scientist named Dr. Duane Guish debated ecolutionary
biologists, anthropologists and other scientitsts at university's and he kept
winning.
>
Joshua;
> Winning what? The debate? I don't believe you.
>
>
>Gavin;
>
>I don't care what you believe. You have already displayed your total
>ignorance on this subject. If you had done your homework you would be aware
>of the mountain of problems macroevolution has and the major problems
>evolutionists have in trying to prove it. Phillip Johnson, Duane Gish and
>others have had many successes in debates with evolutionists because of the
>many large credibility and logic gaps inherant in macroevolution, some of
>which I have referenced.
>
> So now they refuse to debate him. There attitude to open intellectual debate
> > is to quit when your pet theory is repeatedly shown to be lacking the
> > neccessary proof to convince people it is correct. The little evidence
that does exist (Lucy) 9 some bones) that may point to a possible
evolutionary link is highly subjective and is argued for and against by
scientists
who"believe" in evolution.
>
Joshua;
> They are not arguing about evolution. They are arguing about lineage
> which is certainly subject to debate.
>
>
>Gavin;
>
>They are arguing about the total lack of evidence for macroevolution.
>
> Evolution appeals to mainstream scientists and people like you with
mighty ego's who desperately want to be able to explain everything. Man is
the
> > pinnacle, right Nurev. We are so brilliant we can explain all of nature
by the simple means of, enough time and anythings possible, and natural
> > selection. You are not only extremely arrogant, but you also do not know
>that your religion, evolution, is a long long way from established fact. Poor
> > Nurev. He thought his religion was fact.
>
Joshua;
> Pathetic dweeb. You don't know enough to poo poo evolution. And as a
> matter of fact, what you are describing is Humanism. You're getting all
your "
> isms "confused in your desperate and pathetic attempt to justify your
> superstitious beliefs.
>
>Gavin;
>
>I know far more than you. It is not just only myself who knows Darwinism is
a religion. As Phillip Johnson says;
>
>..Darwinism is fundamentally a religious position, not a scientific
position.
>
>...It is religion in the name of science, and that means that it is
>misleading people about both religion and science.
>
>
>Joshua;
> I think that people who believe in supernatural beings without a
> single shred of evidence to back up that belief, suffer from an obvious
mental
> disorder and therefore should be prohibited from owning firearms. And
shoelaces
> too.
>
>Gavin;
>
>I think people who say that their religion is fact are totally bonkers ,
and should immediately visit the proctologist in order to remove their head
form their ass.
>
>Anyone who is interested should read Johnsons review of Michael Behe's
book, ( I posted an edited version)Darwins Black Box. Evolutionists such as
Dawkins
>are completely out of there league when trying to show how massively
complex
>organs came about in a step by step process. As Johnson says;
>
>"What molecular biology has to say is determined not by what the biologists
>say to a popular audience, however, or even to each other in conversation,
>but by what they publish in the leading scientific journals. Behe reports
>that what they do not ever publish in those journals is detailed scenarios
of how even a single complex molecular system could have evolved by a
Darwinian process."
>
>Puntuated equilibrium and Darwinism are both dead as a theory of life on
this planet. As for the genesis of life, one prominant evolutionist(later
>abdicated)Fred Hoyle, said the chances of even the simplest bacteria (still
>more complex than a stealth fighter)forming from some primevel soup
billions of years ago was "about as likely as assembling a Boeing 747 by
sending a
>whirling tornado into a junkyard."
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid
matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
