BBC Documentaries Censored by Dutch Evangelicals

With the percentage of Dutch who speak English this seems like a useless attempt at censorship. Hopefully the difference between the English and its Dutch translation will be obvious to enough viewers that it will hurt the credibility of EO.

Why are they even bothering to broadcast BBC programs?

Ken Hovind and AIG must have hours of creo programming for cheap or free.

Heh. Aren't they going to look foolish. And angry, and just all put out.

Damn! I feel that way every time I hear similar whining. How deep and how frequent and how unsettling does my anger and offense need to be? Sometimes I wish I could get away with projecting my particular impression of reality on as many people as possible; just for the fun of it. Then I remind myself that the outcome would be predictable, mundane, and not much fun after all. (Yes, my reality is dangerous enough that I no longer let it out at night lately. Well, not every night.)

The whining is like the sound heard from the god-walloping keepers of the secret meaning of the secret design of the first word, now manifested as their grating voices begging my over-indulgence of their last, more likely latest, word. Were the tables turned their squealing would only be amplified.

But somehow I still love them, in a way. Not that I feel that I should or must. No, I simply enjoy doing so for its own sake. I find that people respond in like fashion, mostly.

Questions this raises:

1) What is the organization of Dutch television, i.e. do these people have any sort of monopoly over anything?

2) If so much of Attenborough's stuff offends them, why screen it at all? (So they can overdub it and spew their mendacious filth into children's ears, I suppose.)

3) Does Attenborough know what is being done to his work? (Certainly he should be told.)

4) Why doesn't the BBC grow some gonads and refuse to hand these dickheads anything? Talk about 'pearls before swine'...

These creatures are as bad as the "Muslims" who ran around looting and screaming and protesting over the cartoons of the Prophet. They should be stripped of their right to handle telecommunications and be shown the inside of a prison cell for twenty years.

Funny reading Darwinists complaining about the censoring of contradicting views regarding origins.

All stories have more than one way to look at... A Dutch news correspondent has contacted David Attenborough with this story back in July. It turns out that Attenborough has no objections to what the EO has done. In fact, according to this correspondent, the EO and BBC have signed contracts allowing the EO to make these changes.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending what the EO did, but it always pays to do some background checking...

In Dutch:

http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/columns/londen/weblog_tim_juli_2007.html

Mats, would you please provide a source for that assertion?

I've always wondered about that, how could these documentaries not have even one reference to evolution? I all ways thought the BBC just made a choice: keep them neutral so we can sell them to any network.

When i heard about this censorship it suddenly made sense. I just didn't think the people of the EO were capable of such outright censorship.

You have to understand that the EO is not a fundamentalist organization as you know them in the US. I've all ways associated them with the honest, sincerely devout people in the church I was raised in.

Although I've since fallen from my faith I've never seen the EO do any real harm like getting people to harm doctors performing abortions or euthanasia, or trying to infiltrate biology classes with creationist gobbledygook.

I'm not surprised if David Attenborough did allow the changes, although I somehow doubt he was aware exactly what changes would be made precisely. Even if he was, I bet the whole thing was requested on a "all views should be considered" piece of pleading to "fairness".

Attenborough is on the record as saying he accepts evolution and finds the idea of direct design (i.e. ID) difficult to swallow due to the prevalence of nasty parasites he's encountered on his travels. However, like many Brits (of which I am one), I imagine Attenborough is a weak agnostic who doesn't think too much about religious belief yet doesn't react against it either (probably due to the fact that we all live in a country that has a unified church/state).

"Life of Mammals" is quite easy to edit to remove references to evolution (just omit the whole last episode on human evolution and a couple of edits elsewhere, mostly to the first episode). I'd love to see them try and edit the, much older, "Life on Earth" or "The Living Planet" though. They'd have to cut half of them I imagine, as the Earth's natural history is much more prominently displayed in these series.

Andrew

Justin Moretti: Questions this raises: 1) What is the organization of Dutch television, i.e. do these people have any sort of monopoly over anything?

Mats said:

"Funny reading Darwinists complaining about the censoring of contradicting views regarding origins."

Yes, just as your comment was censored - oh, wait....

The "censorship" of contradictory views regarding the origin of species is simply the decision to present factual data and conclusions based on careful scientific work. This is the same sort of "censorship" involved in having math texts that say 2 + 2 = 4, rather than 2 + 2 = 5.

If you made a study of perhaps 1% of the hundreds or thousands of scientific papers in a given year on the subject of, e.g., evolutionary developmental biology, I think you might be truly astounded at the level of good, careful research and factual support for what you call "Darwinism."

Bas said:

"I’ve never seen the EO do any real harm...."

Bas, if the EO is knowingly trying to teach children lies as science, then I must respectfully disagree with you that this does not constitute real harm.

The “censorship” of contradictory views regarding the origin of species is simply the decision to present factual data and conclusions based on careful scientific work. This is the same sort of “censorship” involved in having math texts that say 2 + 2 = 4, rather than 2 + 2 = 5.

"...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy." Sean Pitman, M.D.

Except that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past. Seems like Darwinists can’t tell the diference (deliberatly?) between things that we can test today, and things that are, at best, inferences based on the available data. And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself. Cheers.

Mats, did OJ do it?

Funny reading Darwinists complaining about the censoring of contradicting views regarding origins.

And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself.

Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.” Sean Pitman, M.D.

Mats wrote:

"And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself."

For once Mats, I absolutely agree with you.

Once again, for the record, I am posting under the name "David Stanton" and no other. I am not using the name "Stanton", although I am starting to like this guy.

Mats: like all other creationist crybabies, you have refused to back up your initial assertion about Darwinist censorship with even a specific allegation, let alone proof, despite explicit requests by SEVERAL respondents that you do so. I conclude from this that a) you have no case and are making up nonsense, and b) you're really not willing, or able, to engage with us as an adult. And if you're not willing to engage with us, why should we bother with you?

Seems like Darwinists can’t tell the diference (deliberatly?) between things that we can test today, and things that are, at best, inferences based on the available data.

by replacing spoken English text by an intentionally falsely translated spoken Dutch text

Isn't that sort of like bearing false witness ?

As a fundamentalist Christian organisation inspired by the word of God as revealed in the literal text of the Bible, the EO denies all science that falsifies this literal text.

Mats said:

"Except that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past."

I suppose it depends on your definition of "empirically detectable." I would think bumping into a dinosaur bone, for example, would be far more empirically detectable than the concepts of number theory, as would the results of radiometric dating performed on the bone, as would the results of DNA sequencing performed on the bone.

And of course there are evolutionary principles that are every bit as mathematical as 2 + 2 = 4. See, for example, this paper for a summary of the history of mathematical principles of population genetics: http://www.philosophy.utah.edu/faculty/plutynski/rpt/popgenencyfinal2.pdf

Mats, are you planning to answer some of the questions raised or are you forgetting your Christian duties?

Is the network privately funded?

What intellectual property rights does Dutch law provide the BBC?

I strongly support the right of creationists to believe in crap and express it, at their own private expense. I vehemently oppose allowing them to violate the rights of others by putting sectarian pseudoscience into public schools. I massively oppose the use the use of sectarian pseudoscience and hypocritical sectarian "morality" to guide public policy.

However, when it comes to merely expressing creationist lies at private expense, I find that contemptible and unethical, but to my mind, absolutely protected in a society that values free expression. We must give the benefit of the doubt to those who could be sincerely mistaken or mentally ill; indeed, there is no actual law against lying.

However, if the presentation of BBC material creates the false impression that the BBC advocates creationism, that may violate the BBC's rights. That is a bit different from generating their own crap.

Some Dutch person should get a clip of the EO President saying anything in English, and then dub it in Dutch with the real-but-stupid Bible Quotes, with chapter and verse.

Example of a "dubbed speech in English (sorry I don't know Dutch).

EO PRESIDENT'S COMMENT:
We need to get back to Biblical authority.
BIBLE QUOTE:
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. Deuteronomy 23:1
EO PRESIDENT's COMMENT:
Everyone who goes to church now must prove that his 2 parent, 4 grandparent, 8 great-grandparent, 16 great-great-grandparent, and so on up to his 1,024 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents was legally married. Otherwise we won't let your in the door.

Furthermore, if you can't prove there were no bastards in your family tree for ten generations, and you have to stay home on Sunday, you'd better not be working. If your neighbors report that you worked on the Sabbath we will kill you to be obedient to the Lord.
BIBLE QUOTE:
Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
EO PRESIDENT:
We've got to bring family values back to the Bible. If your son tells you to go to hell, God tells you to kill him. It's right there in the Bible:
BIBLE QUOTE: All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
So go and live a pure Biblical life. SUCKERS!

Oops -

I missed a comment above.

The venue is publicly funded but the Netherlands has the policy of publicly funding diverse sectarian viewpoints.

A rare instance where I disagree with Dutch policy (there are a couple of others). (I also oppose the tax exempt status of religions in the US - I believe in religious institutions being privately funded and paying taxes.)

Again, though, if you give them air time at public expense to express their views, you are in an awkward situation when you subsequently complain that they very predictably do express their views. It's nice if some groups refrain from expressing "worldviews", but rather stupid; what's the point of having a religious or political station that doesn't express the worldview of that religion or political ideology? Doesn't that just make it a regular station?

Again, though, abusing BBC material is unethical and may be illegal.

Just being creationists is their right, and if you choose to give them a legal tax-payer funded station, you get a legal tax-payer funded creationist station. Dutch voters and taxpayers have themselves to blame on that one.

Darwinists complaining about the censoring of contradicting views

... 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past. ... inferences ...

A.R.: Some Dutch person should get a clip of the EO President saying anything in English, and then dub it in Dutch with the real-but-stupid Bible Quotes, with chapter and verse.

Mats said "Except that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past. Seems like Darwinists can’t tell the diference (deliberatly?) between things that we can test today, and things that are, at best, inferences based on the available data. And, as we all know, inferences can reveal more about the observer rather than about the data intself. Cheers."

Mats, different processes leave different traces. Just like the police can tell if a man was shot, stabbed, run over by a car, died of an illness (and which one) or of natural causes, biologists can tell how life came to be what it is. If life had been designed or created, it would have left completely different traces.

The fact that Evolution is accepted by people with such different world views as Atheists, Agnostics and God believers should be a hint that the evidence for Evolution is very strong. Conversely, the fact that Creationism is supported only by a small proportion of God believers (and only by God believers) should tell you something.

Marc L.

As so frequently, the recent comments to this posting have lost track of the original message. However, here follows one that does matter. It is a letter from David Attenborough himself (dated 26 September 2007) in reply to the complaints filed by the Dutch biologists. Although it shows on a (mostly) Dutch language blog, the letter is shown in its original form, i.e. in English. In essence: Sir David is not amused and has taken up the matter with BBC, in order to disallow -- in the future --the kind of insincerity displayed by EO in this case.

See: http://evolutie.blog.com/2143628/#cmts

Except that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is empirically detectable, whereas the origin of species is something that happened in the past

As so frequently, the recent comments to this posting have lost track of the original message.

I keep waiting for Creationist programs that discuss the homo-angelic coupling that was described in Genesis and the race of giants that ensued. They could follow that with a study of how even though Noah and his family were described as the only humans to survive the flood, Joshua met more "Nephilim" (the giants previously referred to) during his many battles to subjugate the Middle East. That means one of two things... either Noah was Nephilim, or that even after the flood, the Angels of God came down and coupled with human women again.
If that is true, are Angels of God still coming down and coupling with our women?
If Creationists want to eliminate Darwin's science, then we need to have some in depth discussions about what is actually in the Bible.

I am something of a biblical scholoar, having read it several times (in fact, I am rereading it now), and have come to the conclusion that what truth was in there has either been mistranslated out of existence or deliberately omitted by the various people who have edited the Bible to suit their purposes. Besides, it was never intended as a literal account anyway - the whole book is symbolic.

Anyway, on topic:

If BBC had an agreement with EC to allow them to censor the program, then I don't really see what all the uproar is about. There are quite a few TV channels available for the Danes to watch, including some from other countries. There are bound to be a few crappy ones, and the viewers of that channel are going to want programming which caters to their worldview. I'm sure they wouldn't have been too happy if the unedited programs were shown, because the programs in their unedited form disagree with the accepted worldview of that channel's customer base. If they chooses to be ignorant, thent so be it. Those who wish to see accurate television prgramming can watch other channels.

Geekspeek, what's really pathetic, is that once, I manage to wrangle a creationist into admitting that the Bible was never intended to be used as a science textbook, and yet, he still insisted that it was more reliable on the subject of science than actual science textbooks.

and yet, he still insisted that it was more reliable on the subject of science than actual science textbooks.

If BBC had an agreement with EC to allow them to censor the program,...

Reminds me of the B. Kliban cartoon of the caveman hiding fearfully behind a rock, reaching out with a stick... to open a book.

Stanton,

As I mentioned on another thread, sometimes creationists will not admit they are wrong to others, even when they have already admitted it to you. Now it seems that sometimes they will not admit they are wrong to themselves even if they admit it to you.

Apparently you are a man after my own name, and possibly my own heart.

"Intellectually dubious" my ass. It's cowardly, stupid, dishonest, ill-willed, and just plain wrong, whatever the law or BBC may say. There's no "dubious" about it.

I don't get the discrepancy between Attenborough's reaction linked by Flip van Tiel, and the Dutch news correspondents reporting of another of Attenborough's reactions as translated by Lex Nederbragt.

But I'm heartened by Attenborough's latest response.

2 + 2 = 4 is not "detectable." It is "definable" or, perhaps better, "axiomatizable." Ugh - that certainly doesn't sound better.

Anyway, Whitehead and Russell spent a few hundred pages trying to define/axiomatize it. Peano had a much better approach. Cantor played some awesome (albeit whacked) games with addition which led directly to my favorite drinking song in college:

Alef(null) bottles of beer on the wall, Alef(null) bottles of beer.
Take one down, pass it around, Alef(null) bottles of beer on the wall.

Alef(null) bottles of beer on the wall, Alef(null) bottles of beer. Take one down, pass it around, Alef(null) bottles of beer on the wall.

This shows again how awful the science community has done in dealing with creationism and ID. It is very easy to get rid of it but no one is trying. For specific arguments and ways of dealing with this see

randomabsurdities.wordpress.com

and the chapter "Does the word God exist?"

in the book

Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely

This shows again how awful the science community has done in dealing with creationism and ID. It is very easy to get rid of it but no one is trying.

"A BBC Worldwide spokesman said that on translation, there would always be differences and that anyone could think about it whatever they want."

I wonder if the BBC would be so relaxed if a far-right German group decided to give an alternative voiceover to a doc about the holocaust?

I hope that was the comment of just one singularly spineless and clueless BBC 'spokesperson'? I can't beleive the whole corporation has sunk so low...

Darn, missed this showing up here.. Phil Plait of BadAstronomy.com had this 2 months ago, so it took some searching to find my comment there.. I glanced over the comments here and some points are already raised by other Dutchies.

(I tried to paste my comment here but the blog software messes with my quotes :/ )

FWIW: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yob9f5

According to the Times, Sir Attenborough isn't happy at all. "David Attenborough hits out at creationists who doctored his films"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2598138.ece

It is very easy to get rid of it but no one is trying.

A large number of "physicists" are working, at great cost to the taxpayer, on string theory. This requires that the dimension of space be 10 or 11. Since string theory violently disagrees with reality it is very attractive to "physicists".

Reffering to someone's commment on this page about a crime happened in the past : evolution did not happen in the past - there is no evidence for it in the fossils record. I was brain washed with evolution in high school; had to memorize stages of the horse evolution and human embrion develpoment : so called recapitulation theory. The last discredited as fraud commited by German "scientist" Heckel. To my surprise in my daughter's biology textbook they are still there after 30 years.Not much had changed in the "scientific" mind of the evolutionary society. Reading evolutionists's works who use "science" of "maybe" or "perhaps" for support, one can not resist an impression that they are very similar to medieval monks' disputations as to how many devils would fit on a tip of a pin.Problem I have is: evolutionism cost a taxpayer a lot of money that can be used in much better way.
A.

The last discredited as fraud commited by German “scientist” Heckel. To my surprise in my daughter’s biology textbook they are still there after 30 years.

Dear Andre,

Has it ever occurred to you that, by appearing to be an illiterate ignoramus, you do no good to your position?

The last discredited as fraud commited by German “scientist” Heckel.

Replying to your guys: the Guye guy and the Popper Ghost guy : Methinks you can get educated by doing some research guys. In case you can not, there is some text below you can read. I got it off the net.
I would really appreciate some comments on my statements starting from words " evolution did not happened in the past ..." Obviously you can not defend the old , much older then Darwin himself an "unfinished theologioan by the way, religion, therefore you reverted to ridicule and abuse. Such is life ... and the culture of the naturalistic religion.The Popper Ghost guy should know that scientist Popper suggested ultimate test for any scientific theory : it should be testable and made falsifiable. Since the evolution is neither it is just another religion perpetrated thru schools and media. And the clip I promised above goes here :

"One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution – reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years.

Most people have seen those drawings of developing human embryos next to developing animal embryos, and they look virtually indistinguishable. (The Haeckel embryo sequence shown purported to show – left to right – a hog, calf, rabbit and human). This has long been said to demonstrate that humans share a common ancestry with these animals and thus prove the theory of evolution.

These pictures were designed by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. What few people know – and one of many surprises in the evolution debate reported in the July edition of Whistleblower magazine (formerly WorldNet) – is that they were fakes. At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was exposed in "Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries," a 1915 book by J. Assmuth and Ernest R. Hull, who quoted 19 leading authorities of the day.

Ernst Haeckel

"It clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos, or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form," said anatomist F. Keibel of Freiburg University. Zoologist L. Rütimeyer of Basle University called his distorted drawings "a sin against scientific truthfulness."

Yet, despite Haeckel’s fraud conviction and early exposure, Western educators continued using the pictures for decades as proof of the theory of evolution.

The matter was settled with finality by Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School in London. He found there was no record that anyone ever actually checked Haeckel’s claims by systematically comparing human and other fetuses during development. So Richardson assembled a scientific team that did just that – photographing the growing embryos of 39 different species.

In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. ... These are fakes."

There was some other frauds to support the evolutionary belief : like the Peppered moth fraud and so calles Piltdown man fraud. Popper Ghost guy should note that the PiltDown man fraud was detecded using proper scientific methods.
A

Methinks you can get educated by doing some research guys.

Popper Ghost guy should note that the PiltDown man fraud was detecded using proper scientific methods.

evolution did not happen in the past - there is no evidence for it in the fossils record.

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

I got it off the net.

Andre:

I missed to update the page, but your clarification that you conflate a reference to Haeckel's depictions of embryos with his rejected theories is still problematic for you. It either means you are intentionally lying or ignorant.

If the latter, I can of course feel sorry for you. But I would also expect you to ask from here on the available pool of biologists and other biology literate individuals for clarification of what Haeckel hypothesized and what evolutionary biologists have verified to be accurate theory. If not, you self identify as a lier.

Argh!

Seems I need a coffee break: "you self identify" - you identify yourself. (Mumble, grumble, mumble...)

It either means you are intentionally lying or ignorant.

Well, well ,well, no amount of personal abuse should change my stance of the topic : evolution is and old religion dressed in so called "science" - of perhaps and maybe. To support my claim here are some statements of prominent evolutionists :

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all
scientist have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it".
This was said by a professor of physics of the University of Manchester
H.S.Lipson.

I believe all you guys have accepted new religion .What I see a problem as a taxpayer is that when you start to bend you data to accommodate your beliefs, damage can be done to people who are sick for instance: remember so called "vestigial organs"? There were many removed indiscriminately and unnecessary and vestigial organs turned out to be not so vestigial after all....

And another "gem" by professor of genetics R.Lewontin :

" we take side of (evolutionary) science in spite of the patent absurdity of
some of its constructs.....in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior
commitment to materialism....Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we
can not allow Divine foot a the door".

Frankly , being absolutely intellectually honest, this is an arrogant insult to human intelligence...

I think motto like this should be on first pages of biology textbooks, university scripts and BBC programs specially with blokes like Attenborough. That would be just fair. There will be no need for any censoring then.
Biology by the way is a science dealing with living things not dead ones so I can not see how evolution , which is a way of looking at the past , can be of any support to it.

I my previous message I cited the internet page of http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23532
apologies to worldnetdaily for not stating it at first instance.

I have an idea for an ultimate experiment to prove evolution : put a frog in a blender , run it for a while , leave it for a week or so and report here on this site, what sort of new species have emerged from the mixture. You would have a lot more basic components for life than original "primordial soup".Wouldn't that be something ? And intellectually honest?.

All religions have to be funded from believers pockets. How about evolutionary belief?...

A

Frankly , being absolutely intellectually honest, this is an arrogant insult to human intelligence…

yes, your blatant quotemining is indeed an insult to human intelligence.

but why are you so insistent on proving yourself to be a moron?

oh well.

evolution did not happen in the past

Dear Ichthyic

I am not worried about mine intelligence. I am worried about yours. Is it possible that acceptance of Lewnontin's statement by you is a result of staying in your "evolutionary" development on, pardon my French, "ichthyic" stage?

A

no amount of personal abuse should change my stance of the topic

The last discredited as fraud commited by German “scientist” Heckel. To my surprise in my daughter’s biology textbook they are still there after 30 years.

” we take side of (evolutionary) science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…..in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism….Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we can not allow Divine foot a the door”.

Frankly , being absolutely intellectually honest, this is an arrogant insult to human intelligence…

I have an idea for an ultimate experiment to prove evolution : put a frog in a blender , run it for a while , leave it for a week or so and report here on this site, what sort of new species have emerged from the mixture. You would have a lot more basic components for life than original “primordial soup”.

Biology by the way is a science dealing with living things not dead ones so I can not see how evolution , which is a way of looking at the past , can be of any support to it.

Ok guys. Enough abuse for today. The week end is here. Discussing anything with you is an absolute waste of time. About 3 hours ago I stated that there were no evidence for evolution in fossil records. Since then what I got back is abuse which is typical to evolutionists who have nothing to support they beliefs, no hope for the future either.No scientific answers that could possibly change my stance Popper Ghost. I think if I was among you physically ,I d had a really good chance of being lynched.
Sad,misguided people.....
Andre

pardon my French

?

LOL

is this what the European version of bornagainBond looks like?

damn, he's funny.

Discussing anything with you is an absolute waste of time

5 bucks says he'll be back tomorrow, at the very latest.

I am back cuz I red Ichthyic's message. She/He is an intelligent creature amongs you.Sadly you do not reveal your names. How about you Popper Ghost ? Are you a ghost of the real Popper or just pretending? Popper was highly intelligent. You are not.And are a coward conveniently hidden in cyberspace. How about repeating all the abuse straigh to my face, Huh? I can practically guarantee, you would have to eat all the excrements you mouth excreted today.
And for all you misguided creatures, here is something that I really admire : a book by evolutionist-honest scientist: "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton Adler & Adler 1996. Read it , think about it and see you later.
I am down under ,Ichthyic.

Bye
A

where's my 5 bucks?

I stated that there were no evidence for evolution in fossil records. Since then what I got back is abuse which is typical to evolutionists who have nothing to support they beliefs, no hope for the future either.No scientific answers that could possibly change my stance

Are you a ghost of the real Popper or just pretending?

no! he REALLY IS the ghost of Popper.

can't you tell by all the phosphorescence that appears by all of his posts?

oh wait, you need a blacklight to see it.

when you get one, turn off all the lights in your room, turn off your monitor, shine the blacklight on it, and you'll see for yourself!

Michael Denton's book is a piece of useless crap.
Creationism and its clone, Intelligent Design are totally useless in describing anything.
You alleged that the fossil record does not contain evidence for evolution, and yet, don't bother to make an alternative explanation for the presence of fossils.
Why?
Can you explain why there have been no human interaction with the placoderm fish Bothriolepis beyond the late 19th Century, when their first fossils were found by Scottish geologists? Fossils of Bothriolepis have been found literally on every continent, and over 100 different species once lived in freshwater rivers and lakes everywhere. Yet, there have been no trace of any human-Bothriolepis interaction. No cooked, eaten, or carved bones in ancient trash middens, no pictures drawn of them before the 19th Century, no nothing.
Can you explain why?

Stanton
Name few transitional forms here please.I help you : Darwin was highly hopeful that one day some t/forms would be unearthed.Nothing was unearthed since and what was is highly questionable.
Document evolution of an eye for instance - name transitional forms - insects included. C mon guys I am a taxpayer and I try to work out what is the benefit for me and the rest of the society from all the work you are conducting ???!!!
Above all name a process that pushes creatures up in the evolutionary development!.

do i get another 5 bucks each time he comes back?

Stanton, just for once, can't you refrain from taking someone so obviously "not even wrong" seriously?

are you THAT bored?

Discussing anything with you is an absolute waste of time.

How about repeating all the abuse straigh to my face, Huh?

To bemoan the abuse that you rightfully deserve is like trying to kill a horse with a pencil and lament about it kicking you in the head.

Why didn't you answer my questions, Andre?
But, since you asked, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
And yes, there are lots of transitional forms.
I'm most familiar with fossils, including the whales, such as Pakicetus to Ambulocetus to Dalanistes to Rodhocetus to Takracetus to Gaviocetus to Basilosaurus to Dorudon to Simocetus and the modern whales, or the uintatheres, such as the Mongolian Prodinoceras to the North American Probathyopis to Bathyopis, then Uintatherium and Dinoceras, or the brontotheres, from the mastiff puppy-sized Eotitanops to the dog-sized Palaeosysops to the cow-sized Dolichorhynchus to the rhinoceros-sized Brontops to the almost elephant-sized Brontotherium, or the wolf-like mesonychids, such as Yangtanglestes to Hukotherium to Dissacus to Ankalagon to Sinonyx to Pachyaena to Jiangxi chaotensis to Hessolestes to Synoplotherium to Mesonyx to Mongolonyx to Guilestes to Mongolestes to Harpagolestes.
If you don't believe me, go look any one of these up in Google, or better yet, http://cholar.google.com
If there was no evidence provided by fossils as you lied, Anton, then, what do you honestly think all of these people have been doing with all of the fossils they've been studying all these years?
So, now that I've made a genuine attempt to answer your questions, can you answer mine, in return?

Nothing was unearthed since and what was is highly questionable.

Stanton, just for once, can’t you refrain from taking someone so obviously “not even wrong” seriously? are you THAT bored?

shouldn't AGITATE wild animals, even

your argument falls flat.

you're trying to educate a lump of treacle.

sorry, but I just can't condone you taking this guy seriously.

The least I can do is to shed further light on how he's a lying hypocritical troll.
I did answer his questions, and now, if he wants to salvage whatever small sliver of legitimacy he intends to claim, he had better attempt to answer mine, though I doubt he will.
...
Ichthyic, some people like to kill mosquitoes with bugspray, others use flyswatters.
I like to kill mine with a sawed off shotgun.

Stanton
Now, you are making unscientific assumption : why do you think Denton's work is useless? Unbiased scientist,should take all the possibilities under cinsideration. Did you read it? I red it,was able to understand it because it was written in easy to understand language.
Maybe there is another question : if you dared to challenge evolutionary establishment, would you be able to keep your job?
Will somebody put Popper Gost back where IT belongs ? Back in his low evolutionary niche? Please.!!Or give him/her one more beer so IT will go to sleep......Please!!!

Replying to your guys: the Guye guy ...

To my surprise in my daughter’s biology textbook they are still there after 30 years.Not much had changed in the “scientific” mind of the evolutionary society.

I would really appreciate some comments on my statements starting from words “ evolution did not happened in the past …”

Given as how people have been saying that Evolutionary Biology has been "in crisis" for the last 1 and a half centuries, and yet, biologists have not deigned to use or promote other rival theories in this time, Denton is lying out of his ass.
Furthermore, Denton, like ALL OTHER Intelligent Design proponents, is totally incapable of making even the most pitiful token effort to explain prehistoric organisms.
Why do you honestly expect Creationism or Intelligent Design to replace Biology if Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are wholly incapable of explaining anything beyond "GODDIDIT"?

Furthermore, can you answer my questions, especially the one about Bothriolepis?

Ok last of all:
can any of you guye guys ,name one thing that it was by you and advanced science forward. Apart from the abuse of your opponents of course. It was fun though. Thanks all.
I hope I can use the material of today in my further disputes with bunches of guye guys like you.
A

Ok last of all:
can any of you guye guys ,name one thing that it was by you and advanced science forward. Apart from the abuse of your opponents of course. It was fun though. Thanks all.
I hope I can use the material of today in my further disputes with bunches of guye guys like you.
A

So how does this answer the questions I asked of you?

He's not interested in answering your questions; he's trolling for "material".

OK I do not believe myself I am still here :
When you answer MY question I asked : name the process that pushes creatures up the evolutionary tree namely molecules to man process ,and I want scientific support in shape of fossils,not stort trlling, then I try to answer yours. You see ,you evolutionists avoid answering any legitimate scientific questions. You try to shift the problem somewhere else or simply abuse the opponent. By the way even if I did answer your question , you would probably abuse me more as ,I presume , the answer would have to fit science, logic, truth, and common sense defying evolutionary assumptions. You see, your research leads nowhere , your contribution to society is nothing. Remember vestigial organs ? You belief is strictly religious as the evolution is not testable or observable therefore it can not be answered by any scientist.
By the way : one of the Columbine massacre student had a t- shirt with "natural selection" written on it.
Is there any other words in your evolutionary vocabulary than shit , ass, troll and so forth. Those are hardly supportive of your point.

A

Is there any other words in your evolutionary vocabulary than shit , ass, troll and so forth

Andre:
You have been repeatedly asked for the name of your daughter's book, the one that you claim presents Haeckel's drawings of evidence of evolution. Your failure to do so fairly convincingly demonstrates that you were lying.

A word of advice: next time you read something at a creationist site and think perhaps you should post it to a pro-evolution site, don't. You will be expected to provide support for it and all you will have are quotes from people who quoted someone else who quoted someone else who misrepresented or misquoted or lied about something a biologist said. Or alternatively, if you say something like 'there is no evidence for . . .' expect to be directed to lots of evidence for it. In this regard, check out how and why Tiktaalik was discovered.

BTW, although creationists love to attack the fossil record (with foam rubber teeth, I might add), fossils have never been considered the main evidence to support the theory of evolution.

You see, your research leads nowhere , your contribution to society is nothing.

Actually, let me answer that: no Creationist nor Intelligent Design proponent has been able to contribute anything to Biology, especially since the ones today demonstrate time and time again that they have neither the expertise nor the ability, nor the motivation to do any science whatsoever. Creationists like you, James Bond, and the idiots at the Discovery Institute, you all worship your own ignorance. You all have deified your collective ignorance, and you all masturbate to your stupidity, and have the arrogant gall to claim that as "divine inspiration." Why? Because for vanity's sake, you think that being related to monkeys and other primates is unbecoming. Yet, Creationists also allege that because of Adam and Eve's transgression, Death and Decay and Illness and Evil came into the Universe. Personally, a monkey would be a far nobler relation than someone who wrecked the entire Universe for one apple.

You came to this site with a lie, and you were called out on this lie. Yet, you bemoan abuse. Perhaps if you didn't come here with the specific intent to troll the site with your spoonfed lies, we wouldn't be so aggressive towards you. However, given as how your words betray the fact that you've long since made up your mind against Evolutionary Biology, your claim that you will now refuse to listen to evidence for Evolution marks you as a hypocrite.

If it is true that you have a daughter, I have great pity for her, given as how her father has the social and mental skills of a 2nd grade bully.

Gooooood morning funhouse
You bias is appaling, you mind is as opened as tiny little hole in camera obscura. Read the quotation of Lewontin i supplied above, again. Saying that ,he spat in your evolutionary face and you wiped it out and saying : it is raining.
It is not that I refused to listen to you evolutionary argument ,it is because you can not provide any argument to support your religious zeal ,that is why you kept abusing me all the way.
Why , you evolutionnists have to attack the Bible or creationists to support your claims ,anyway ?. Did I said I was a creationinst ? I asked some questions after doing some internet research being high school educated and taken my biology classes seriously.I can thank God that I did not allowed myself to be as completely brainwashed as you are.
I had a discussion with another "pundits" of your denomination who had an internet site with a message " The Bible can not be taken literally therefore I am an evolutionist".
I was abused in similar manner afer asking similar questions and finally he said he had to go back to school. I think he was a teacher.Poor high school kids.
Finally it is not me who came here with a lie, it is you and your like zelots who have been pertpetrated the lie ever since. The problem is, soome people take evolution the lie seriously.I can name two after Heckael : Hitler and Stalin.
You are smart enough to go on Google and find soom emore about the two.

Regards

Andre

some corrections to my previus message: yours should be in the place of you , further down zealot in place of zelot and so forth..I wrote it having my coffe and did ot run a spelcheck in the heat of the moment .Apologies.
One creationist I can name contributing a lot to science was Isaak Newton, Pasteur comes to mind second. Do your research.
Darwin for a change was a theologian and a guy who came with uniformitarianism was a lawyer called Lyell. Hardly experts in the field of science.
Regards

Andre

You are a creationist, especially since you repeat creationist lies word for word in all of your posts that you do not bother to misspell. And yes, you are a typical Creationist liar, given as how you've trotted out the exact same false lies, especially since you insist that "fossils aren't evidence of evolution," and you can't explain why Hitler's reason for exterminating the Jews was because God commanded him to do so, or why Stalin denounced Evolution and Genetics as the "Whore of Capitalism."
That you came here, insisting that fossils aren't evidence, and yet, also claim that you aren't a creationist, screams aloud that you are a lying creationist.
Furthermore, Louis Pasteur was not a creationist, and Sir IsaaC Newton has absolutely, positively no bearing on Biology whatsoever, given as how he is a PHYSICIST, not a biologist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

Why can't you name me a Young Earth Creationist who has contributed to Biology within the last 100, or even last 50 years?

I wrote it having my coffe and did ot run a spelcheck in the heat of the moment.

One creationist I can name contributing a lot to science was Isaak Newton

The problem is, soome people take evolution the lie seriously.I can name two after Heckael : Hitler and Stalin.

Stanton
I consulted my daughter : Australian Biology HSC Dot Point by Kerri Humphreys, on few first pages third or fifth shows a diagram of embryos of fish , amphibian,reptile, mammal and human still looking quite similar, above it, a piece of text saying :"Gills slits",leaders from under the text pointing to all of their necks and under the diagram a question : "explain how comparable embryology supports the theory of evolution" or something of that nature; i do not remember word for word.Now if that is not good old Haeckel then what is it ?
You see , I never witnessed creationist masturbating,as you stated in your previous message but from what you and your cronies on this site are saying: i draw a conclusion that you are all absolutely screwed up , far beyond masturbation, mate. Stop being so immune to ideas for you own sake.! You see, i repeat creationists" lies" as you stated because creationists are the only ones with guts to challenge your religion and its hierarchy!Knowing that they wold be excluded from research, they may even loose their job! They are prepared to stand up to you and say you are the ones who lie to the society. And I am deeply thankful for them. Otherwise I would be continually misinformed and lied to by people like you ! One of them the one who invented new technology for complete body scan was denied Nobel prize for being a creationist!I forgot is name you would have to search creationists sites which you despise..Sorryyyy
One can be sure of one thing: no matter what the current evolutionary research it will be discredited by future evolutionists therefore it is a waste of our shrinking resources.
So who is the moron now ,Popper Ghost ? LOL

A

As to Hitler : he was certainly not Christian even though his soldiers had "Gott mit uns" written on their belts. He was a spiritualist. You probably heard a term in German : ubermensh - super human.In distinction from sub humans whose extermination was conducted so efficiently because Germans were persuaded that others are nothing but evolutionary misfits. You see this happened in the centre of Europe in evolutionized Germany - at the time one of the most civilized countries of the world.
As to Stalin ; he conducted research on human monkey hybrid an ultimate communist warrior !He could have only get the idea from dopes evolutionists "scientists" as in reality such a hybrid is impossible. (You should know something about genetics I presume.)
that was for Stanton and Simons together. Popper Ghost I consider an evolutionary misfit - an reject of mighty natural selection force.Almost divine. One of you guys,that I discussed evolution with before stated that evolution had a purpose ! LOL.
A.

You are the one who is lying, and you are the one who is spreading misinformation on this thread. Given as how Evolutionary Biology has no holy text, no priesthood, no messiah, and no sacred rituals beyond performing experiments adhering to the scientific method and having peer-reviewed articles, the only way one can call the Theory of Evolution a religion is to regard Hydrogen-bonding Theory and stamp-collecting religions also. It seems very strange that you would bemoan your daughter's biology textbook, and yet, take well over a day and much prompting to reveal its title. Furthermore, unless you actually name names, and identify this alleged creationist who was cheated out of a Nobel Prize because he was a creationist, we have no choice but to dismiss it as gossip. You're claiming that we're liars, even though you are the one spreading lies, such as about Hitler, Stalin, alleged lack of evidence, and of evolution being a religion despite no priesthood, or holy texts, and you haven't even acknowledged the 40+ transitional forms I provided you. And yes, I do mean "masturbate to one's own stupidity and call it "divine inspiration."" Obviously, you don't read the moronic posts by other creationist trolls, such as that moron James Bond.

Why so quiet ? Are you all on Google searching for answers ? LOL...

The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65).

A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).

Unless you actually cough up an actual source that said that Stalin was trying to breed monkeys with humans to create a line of hybrid supersoldiers, you're just lying out of your ass. The only incident I know of that Stalin had with monkeys was when he had the zookeepers at the Moscow Zoo executed when a monkey there came down with tuberculosis.

"The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)"
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65)."
"A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933)."
Tell me why you would think that Hitler say these things if he didn't think he was a Christian and not an "evolutionist"?

Also, Andre, why is it so hard for you to acknowledge the fact that I did provide you with transitional forms when you asked? Or are you just ignoring that I did so, so you can keep insisting that I'm lying to you?

In June 1994, Creation magazine ran a feature article1 on Dr Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanner. This medical breakthrough has saved many lives. We wrote how Dr Damadian had been awarded the United States’ National Medal of Technology. He has also been inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers, where he was awarded the Lincoln-Edison medal.

(At the time, Dr Damadian’s patents on the MRI scanner invention had been infringed. A jury decision in his favour had been inexplicably overturned by the judge in favour of the companies that had exploited his ideas. However, three years later, the US Supreme Court overruled in his favour.)

In 2003, the Nobel Prize for Medicine went to the breakthrough field of diagnostic MRI scanning. It was shared by two scientists. But, to the stunned disbelief of virtually all who worked in that field, these did not include Raymond Damadian, even though the terms allow for up to three people to share the award.

Dr Eugene Feigelson is Dean of the State University of New York College of Medicine in New York, the institution where Damadian’s pioneering work was done. He said, ‘… we are so disappointed, and even angry … all of MRI rests on the fundamental work that Dr Damadian has done here.’

There you are Stanton you evolutionary dope....

and the link below:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/nobel.asp

I thought James Bond was a British 007 agent LOL

Please do further research in the site as to Stalin because I have enough for today. I can discuss something with people who show some IQ. Don't you have an entry test to this site , a quick IQ test preventing morons to post their crap?
It is Sunday and for the rest of the afternoon I am planning to play a Xbox game called Bioshock. In the game you can modify genetically your body to do strange and wonderful things. I think the story of the game would supply your forum here , I mean forum with the IQ level you represent here with a lot of messages to share.
See ya bunch of compulsive, obsessive liars...

Andre

Actually, if you actually read about Dr Damadian's situation from a reputable source, such as the Nobel Prize Committee, rather than Answers In Genesis, his belief in Creationism was not an issue for his not winning the prize. If it is true that he was denied a share of the prize because he was a creationist, then can you explain why fellow contributor Dr H. Y. Carr, who is not a creationist, was also denied a share of the prize? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320_2.html And yes, unless you actually provide a reputable source that describes Stalin's alleged chimpanzee-human hybrid experiments, you are lying out of your ass. And no, online tabloids are not reputable in any scenario.

Given as how you have learned all of your science from a video game and religious bigots like those at Answers in Genesis, if we had an "IQ" filter, you wouldn't be here bothering us.

I consulted my daughter : Australian Biology HSC Dot Point by Kerri Humphreys, on few first pages third or fifth shows a diagram of embryos of fish , amphibian,reptile, mammal and human still looking quite similar, above it, a piece of text saying :”Gills slits”,leaders from under the text pointing to all of their necks and under the diagram a question : “explain how comparable embryology supports the theory of evolution” or something of that nature;

creationists are the only ones with guts to challenge your religion and its hierarchy!

In 2003, the Nobel Prize for Medicine went to the breakthrough field of diagnostic MRI scanning. It was shared by two scientists. But, to the stunned disbelief of virtually all who worked in that field, these did not include Raymond Damadian, even though the terms allow for up to three people to share the award.

OK dopes, lets summarise:

1.I stated that there was no evidence for evolution in the fossil records, and asked to provide names of transtional forms, you failed to do so.
2.I asked you to name a process that pushes up a creature in the evolutionary development, you failed to do so.
3. I was personally abused in the process of asking those questions many times.
4.Finally you accused me of plagiarism even though I always gave sources of my info.
5.You doubted integrity of the scientisct I cited in my discussin with you.

My conclusions are : You have no respect to real science research methods.You can not criticize Dutch evangelist for removing unsubstantiated claims made during the BBC broadcast because Attenborough and others base their claims on their beliefs namely in naturalistic origin of the Universe that can not be peroven by empirical science.Any self respecting philosopher will tell you that. You can not pass the point back in the history of the universe ,where everythng began. There is no known technology to explore the beginning of the Universe. All the ideas Darwin and other conveyed are based on naturalistic assumptions and beliefs.
If you dare to put up an internet site like yours , it would be just fair to post in a big font Lewontin's statemetnt I cited in my arguments.It wuld be fair to print Lewontin statement in the front pages of evolutionary textbooks, TV programmes and so forth. I believe the general public would have better unerstanding of what the evolutionary belief really is.
I will not bother you anymore , there is no point.

( I do not believe creationists would sue me for quoting their pages as my own even if I did so.Those people are commited to find the truth abouut the reality. I believe Evolutionist would!)
And my final conclusion : Evolutionsts' disputations are very similar in merit to thoes of medieval monks as to "how many devils would fit on the tip of a pin!"

Bye dopes.

A

Really, I have great pity for your daughter, given as how you are a lying hypocrite who has extraordinarily poor social skills.

1.I stated that there was no evidence for evolution in the fossil records, and asked to provide names of transtional forms, you failed to do so.

— Andre

2.I asked you to name a process that pushes up a creature in the evolutionary development, you failed to do so.

3. I was personally abused in the process of asking those questions many times.

I was personally abused in the process of asking those questions many times.

I will not bother you anymore

Don’t you have an entry test to this site , a quick IQ test preventing morons to post their crap?

Continuing... I also proved the good old Haeckel's fraud to be still in text books today.Methaohysical pseudo science can only be supported by frauds. PvM - thanks for the link. You see , evolutionism looses credibility rapidly being tested by creationists. The link you supplied explains transitinal fossils from "reputable" evolutionary point of view.From the evolutionary point of iew there is LOTS of evidenvce for evolution. Whole divison of rocks deposits into eras and so forth is based upon uniformitarianism devised by lawyer Lyell. Dating of those deposits is highly questionable and as far as I remember is done by so called index fossils. As you may know those are accepted by evolutionists animals ,which appeared according to the big E religion in particular spots of the evolutionary process of molecules to man transition. Evolution supports evolution.Of course anybody who comes up with dates that differ from the accepted dogmas is abused, ridiculed and asked to supply "reputable" source of info or , in case of a evolutionist just shuts up and treats it as a "secret of the trade"

Clip form the page you supplied:
Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.

Analyse the fragment and you find "science" of "probably" here. Today's sharks looks quite similar today dont they ?
I asked for transitional forms that show transformation : dino to bird followed by a pic od a creature's fossil not an artist's impresson and explanation how the new info for lungs, hollow bones and so forth came from. Genetic variation can not add anything to the genome. New info is needed.
And PvM : you confession did not helped here. I would not mix Christ here either. It only shows your compromised stance of an issue for a sake of a job keeping maybe ?. Have a look at one of the abusive messages before. E people here know exacttly what christianity is all about.
Please do not bother ... get educated ..

And do not worry about my daughter . Since childhood she was taught to use her brain.

A

I asked you to name a process that pushes up a creature in the evolutionary development, you failed to do so.

Richard
I quoted the answersingenesis.org site as the only alternative source of information to good old evolutionary blah...blah..
I never claimed it was my own , I was answering your message.
Continuing on the education issue please read : " The Biotic Message evolution versus message theory" by Walter James ReMine, StPaul science ,St Paul, Minnesota.
And please do not mix science and evolution. Of course evolutionists use scientific equipment labs, microscopes , employ staff and so on. But I am quite suspicious about reporting the outcome of their research. I think, in many cases there is "data bending" to accommodate evolutionary beliefs.As a member of taxpaying public I have every right to demand the truth.Having my kid at school I have right to get proper education not exposure on someones beliefs.
Funny, reading creationists I hardly saw something that you accused them of: " God did it" statement. In their debates they often use quotes from evolutionist's works. And that is far more credible than some of the stuff I red on this site ,for instance.
So let's see who is Walter James ReMine in your opinion....

In typical fashion, Andre ignores the evidence and believe that AIG is somehow a credible source. The Biotic Message is relevant how?

As a Christian I support your continuing efforts to familiarize yourself with the facts, however AIG is not the best website to learn about science

Continuing… I also proved the good old Haeckel’s fraud to be still in text books today.Methaohysical pseudo science can only be supported by frauds. PvM - thanks for the link. You see , evolutionism looses credibility rapidly being tested by creationists. The link you supplied explains transitinal fossils from “reputable” evolutionary point of view.

— Andre

From the evolutionary point of iew there is LOTS of evidenvce for evolution.

Whole divison of rocks deposits into eras and so forth is based upon uniformitarianism devised by lawyer Lyell. Dating of those deposits is highly questionable and as far as I remember is done by so called index fossils.

As you may know those are accepted by evolutionists animals ,which appeared according to the big E religion in particular spots of the evolutionary process of molecules to man transition. Evolution supports evolution.Of course anybody who comes up with dates that differ from the accepted dogmas is abused, ridiculed and asked to supply “reputable” source of info or , in case of a evolutionist just shuts up and treats it as a “secret of the trade”

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

And PvM : you confession did not helped here. I would not mix Christ here either. It only shows your compromised stance of an issue for a sake of a job keeping maybe ?. Have a look at one of the abusive messages before. E people here know exacttly what christianity is all about. Please do not bother … get educated ..

Perhaps you wish to take the transitional fossil challenge?

Good luck my friend.

Perhaps you wish to take the transitional fossil challenge? Good luck my friend.

Dear PvM
I thought that here , so far, we have discussed evolutionism. You presented yourself as a Christian and are trying to convince me of some transitional fossils supporting evolutionary belief. My dear , Christianity is about creation and salvation. You are mistaken if you think otherwise. The worst mistake the church ever did was to allow evolutionary ideas creep inside.One can not use science to prove that God exists. You can only draw conclusions of His existence observing complicated biological machinery inside us and every living creature, information that is contained in DNA, complex biochemical processes etc.For believers there is also Bible and teaching of Christ.You see, that is everybody choice :you believe and live and you do not believe and eternally die, a real death for ever.No hell sorry....
There was a guy called Paley he came up with a theory "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non life". Refer to the book I cited before for further reading ( The Biotic Message... by WJ ReMine). And a good advice : read it before you criticize anybody. Without that you look like a fool asking foolish question as to how it is relevant . I found it more relevant to reality than evolutionism.
Anybody would not question a notion that Boeing planes were designed. For some reason evolutionists are trying to convince me that a bird , which is much more complex that any plane ,came to existence by itself. That is an insult to anybody who uses his/hers brain.In times of Darwin people did not have as much info about genetics as we do today. Today Darwin would not have a chance. Evolutionists till today can not explain, amongst other things, how first cell came to existence. There are actually mechanisms in chemistry that prevent spontaneous assembly of proteins. Refer to a DVD "Chemicals to living cells - fantasy or science" , by Dr Jonathan Sarfati. Unfortunately for you this DVD is available from creationist's Internet site. Google it and you shall find...
Even one of the most prominent of them all , Mr Dawkins says that the nature produces organisms that appeared to be designed.He says that he is a staunch supporter of Darwinism when it comes to evolution but he oppose him also when it comes to moral issues (I forgot where I red it - sorry). And rightly so : Who is to say that killing of unborn is wrong if we are product of some scum. What about stealing : before French revolution stealing was a sin , after it became a necessity.French abolished the Bible and established a goddess of reason whose temporary temple was in Notre Dame. Not for long...After the great slaughter that followed , people of Paris built a church as a testimony:thanks God for no more revolution.
I said in my message that there is a lot of evidence for evolution from evolutionary point of view. I meant to be ironic. Sorry.. you misunderstood me...
And for the end cuz I am getting hungry : I think it is not me who casts shadows on Christianity but so called Christians who do not know where their faith should rest.Thanks for having me in your prayers I hope their rich the ceiling. I recommend for you "Refuting Compromise" By Dr Jonathan Sarfati,Master Books www.masterbooks.com.

Regards

A

I will not bother you anymore

Andre: Don't you have an entry test to this site , a quick IQ test preventing morons to post their crap?

no amount of personal abuse should change my stance of the topic

Popper's Ghost and Torbjörn Larsson - it looks like yu just recovered from the last night meth (ice) session.Good to see you back !
Maybe that is why ghost's Meter exploded. Are you sure it was today ghost ?

Here is something Dr Gould said about gradualism and fossil record:
"The fundamental reason why most paleontologists do not care much for gradualism is because the fossil record does not show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that since Couvier [...]Every paleontologist knows that most species do not change.That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you do not see it it brings distress."
That was said during the questions and answers following his lecture on Hobart & William Smith College.
I presume you know who Cuvier and Dr Gould were - if not Google it !

And another one : In the "Darwin Debate" Marxism today Young wrote : "Aspects of evolutionism are perfectly consistent with Marxism .The explanation of the origins of human kind and mind by purely natural forces was and remains , as welcome to Marxists as to any other secularists. The sources of value and responsibility are not to be found in separate mental realm or in an immortal soul , much less in the inspired word of the Bible".
Quotes taken from "Darwin's Enigma" by L.Sunderland Master Books.
Did you understand that?
Now , how this, specially the last quote, compares to your Christianity PvM? Stop stupid comments.
You see, you people are miserable here because you are trying to defend your beliefs in evolution and do not even know what learned evolutionists are saying....
I highly regard learned evolutionists even if I do not believe in what they are teaching, that is why I often say to you Communist dopes : GET EDUCATED....LOL.

Mats and BJB are starting to look intelligent and reasonable ... relatively speaking.

Andre, you said:

"For some reason evolutionists are trying to convince me that a bird, which is much more complex that any plane ,came to existence by itself. That is an insult to anybody who uses his/hers brain."

You know, you're absolutely right. Everyone knows that a bird comes from an egg. Andre who are these dumb evolutionists who say that a bird just came into existence by itself, without the egg bit? Name and shame them!

ugh! Gav,that was heavy!! Just heavy ,not heavy with intelligence.
What was first you smartie pants, bird or an egg ?
What about that IQ test i asked before ?

Where is Stanton, Simons and the "Fishy"? Reading the Message theory ..:) Those were intelligent ones .. misguided but intelligent.....
A

OK Andre you tell me, seriously now, don't, er, beat about the bush, where do you think birds come from?

And please do not mix science and evolution.

Why not? Tired of having your pretty upturned nose rubbed in the fact that evolutionary biologists are actually doing science?

Of course evolutionists use scientific equipment labs, microscopes, employ staff and so on. But I am quite suspicious about reporting the outcome of their research.

Okay, why don't you report on the outcome of IDers' research instead? We're waiting...

Since it stimulates the mesolimbic reward pathway, causing euphoria and excitement, it is prone to abuse and addiction. Users may become obsessed or perform repetitive tasks such as cleaning, hand-washing, or assembling and disassembling objects.

Can you demonstrate where creationists have attempted to explain how the indigenous plants and animals of Hawaii were able to get to Hawaii from Mount Ararat in fine detail? Or can you find in Answers In Genesis where they discuss the extinct Oreodonts? Can you show us what Intelligent Design can tell about the Intelligent designing of placoderms or mesonychids?

Then again, given as how you honestly believe that Stalin tried to create hybrid "man-monkey supersoldiers," despite not bothering to produce a single credible source to support this idiotic claim, I strongly doubt that you can. Perhaps your daughter can answer my questions in your stead, instead?

I only ask as, it is my personal experience that Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents appear to be both woefully incapable of providing even the most basic scientific description of nature, which (Evolutionary) Biology is, and both Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents appear totally unmotivated to make even the most pathetic attempt at understanding the natural world.

You serve only to support a pet hypothesis of mine that both Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents abhor, and despise the concept of attempting to understand the natural world, that is, if they are capable of understanding that concept at all.

Guys , seriously , did you bother to do research of your own kind : evolutionists? Did you bother read the quotes of learned evolutionists I posted before ? ( I got confused reading evolutionists, by the way: 2 evolutionists 3 different opinions. LOL ) Ok ,anyhow....
You see , guys like Gould could say what they think because the were or are well known in evolutionary establishment have a teaching job and their own research. And again : Dr Gould said that there is no continuity in the fossils. Do you have better evolutionary credentials than him ? See, he had balls to say what he knew without being afraid of loosing his job or passing exams. Frankly , you guys apear to me to be a bunch over excited first year Bilogy students or something like that .Nuns maybe ? ( just remembered PvM quoting St Augustine). Lewnontin openly stated what I cited before for the same reason. All the excitement for abusing creationists and posting lie after a lie on sites like this one , is done by little guys like you. I mean little in the establishment. (I asked you to name some of yor own work that pushed the science forward and you failed to do so.)
I think we can not fully understand the world. Simple example : scientist still do nt quite get it how light works.Is it a wave or a corpuscle.They can use it : lasers and some other things but do not fully understand it. Another question I ask just thinking about link to alleged transitional fossils site : how can you judge a creature to be primitive? Is it physical apperance or a genetic info. Human have 24 chromosomes. chrisanthemum has 40 as I remeber . Who is more prmitive here ?
To answer Gav's question: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Crick 1981 p 188)After WJ.ReMine, "Message theory..."
I hope , for crying out laud that you know who Crick was !!!???.(little help : you can associate his name with DNA..)And what that all about about Troll. You do not seriously believe such a creatures existed ,do you ? Are you Dutch ? Then I would understand the amount of abuse : you can buy dope in your coffe shops LOL .You can get exposed to it by passive smoking for instance in such a shop and then you see all those Trolls wallowing around LOL..Isn't a troll part of the Scandinavian mythology ?
And As usual I greet you people with sacramentally important GET EDUCATED!!
A
Oh....
Little helper : Bios - life in Greek. Logos - word in Greek. Science dealing with living things.
Operational science : maths . physics ,
Historical science Paleonthology for instance.
Evolution: a religion based on naturalistic belief see quotation above.
Something to think about ...
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleonthology does not provide them."
DB Kitts PhD School of Geology and Geophysics Dept of the History of Science Univ of Oklahoma.

See ya obstinates...:) Oh .. and do not worry for calling me all the stuff you did before . You are forgiven....

And one more why dont you ask creationists all those questions or do your own research on their sites and try to sell some of your abuse there ??

Andd again..Torbjörn Larsson, it is LIAR, you misspelled it twice.
Get Educated !
A

Stanton!!! Get Educated ! It looks like you are only quarter educated on the subjects of evloutionary religion and the Bible.
Noah did not have to take plants on his ark. Animals only !!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp

Guys, guys ... chicken and the egg? Surely there's nothing to be gained by interacting with this very sad sack version of a mentally challenged troll.

stanton.
I have time to read thru some of your messages and did some research :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0314gill-slits.asp

Gills in humans. You said the humans have gills and some "reputable" biology textbooks even have photos of them. Reputable meaning evolitionary of course. Well find the truth on the link above.There is something about Haeckel there too.

And another one of yours stating from: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65).” “A campaign against the “godless movement” .This is what Hitler said.

Christ said "love thy neighbour" - does not matter who it is : Jew, Dutch , evolutionist or creationist,black or white.

I tell you more..inquisition killed milions of people in the name of god. God who ?...

Get it ? That is why I believe if you try to abuse creationists they will not abuse you back. They are Christians.
Hitler was talking about creator but not the One who made universe. His "creator" was the same who speaks hatred ever since he was expelled from paradise. Well, i do not want to go further because you would not understand. Unbelievers cannot discern spiritual things.
A
Get... educated :)

And finally Stanton, if you abhor the AiG site here I posted a piece from it about the gill slits that you misunderstood in your reputable Biology textbook : "So what are these misnamed structures? Actually, they are nothing more than folds in the region of the tiny embryo’s throat. By the 28th day of life, the embryo’s brain and spinal cord seem to be racing ahead of the rest of the body in growth. Therefore, for a time, the spinal cord is actually longer than the body, forcing the body to curl and flexing the neck area forward. (This curled embryo with the long spinal cord is mistakenly accused by some people of having a tail.) Just as many people develop a double chin when bending the neck forward, so the embryo has folds in its neck area due to this flexing.

We scientists especially like to name things. Gill slits is a misleading name, since these folds are neither gills nor slits. Another popular name, branchial arches, is just as deceptive because branchial comes from the Greek word for “gills.” Somehow the name neck folds just isn’t fancy enough for our scientific minds, so these folds are called pharyngeal arches, since they are arch-shaped folds near the throat. (Pharyngeal is the scientific word for things having to do with the throat. When you say you have a sore throat, your doctor says you have pharyngitis.) The creases between the folds are called pharyngeal clefts, and the undersides of the folds are called pharyngeal pouches." after AiG site .

In my kid's biology textbook there were as you remember diagrams of embryos of fish , amphibian, reptile, human ,and mammal a piece of text saying "gill slits" and leaders pointing to necks of them all. And that ,my dear, mongoliodal friend, is Haeckel..
By the way .. did you know that mongolism is caused by extra 21 chormosome in human genome. extra info ! Help in the evlotionary way up. But no....it actually make people disable.....DoH !!!
A

Ghost .. you reocovered well.. you got back to the beginnig and reading it all again HUH ? You got to the part of chicken and egg !!!
Good work!!!

Stanton...
"You serve only to support...."

Well , do YOU understand the nature well? Name a piece of your own scientific work that would help us to understand it better...

Dr Gould said that there is no continuity in the fossils.

Torbjörn Larsson, it is LIAR, you misspelled it twice. Get Educated !

In Ken Ham's "eulogy" for Steve Irwin, he essentially says that Mr Irwin was killed by God and is now burning Hell because he failed to repent for the twin unforgivable sins of believing in evolution and for not believing in God in the same exact way that Ken Ham believes in God. Ham then goes on to say that the fires of Hell await everyone who does not fear and believe in God in the exact same way that he does. Please explain how Ham's "eulogy" demonstrates Christ's admonishment of "love thy neighbor"? Last I heard, telling a person that God sent a person to Hell to burn forever is a demonstration of "hate."
In fact, calling people "dopes" or insisting that they're stupid when they are not are also demonstrations of "hate."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0904irwin.asp

Furthermore, "gill slits" were named "gill slits" by anatomists because they resembled the gill slits of fish, much like the reason why anatomists named the hippocampus of the brain after the genus of seahorses because that structure looked like a seahorse. Once a structure has been named in Anatomy, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to petition to have it renamed. That's why the neurolemma refers to the Schwann cells, which were mistaken for the outer layer of the neuron, rather than the outer layer of the neuron-proper, as the early anatomists did not have powerful enough microscopes that allowed them to distinguish between the two layers.

I am not a scientist yet, I am working on my Biology major, and thus, have no proper scientific paper yet. That being said, I know heads, shoulders and feet above what you know, Andre. As a hobby, I research prehistoric animals so I can draw them. If you actually took the time to look at my website *points to link in name*, you would have already known this. But, then again, given as how you're too busy lambasting people for accepting Evolutionary Biology, and screaming "abuse" when you've been taken to task for your lying, you never did bother to even acknowledge that I provided you with numerous transitional forms, let alone ask you questions.

Andre - my question related specifically to birds, not to the origin of life. As you seem happy to engage, can we have another go please without wrangling over words?

(i) People have dug up lots of fossils from various kinds of rocks. Some kinds of fossil-bearing rocks seem older than others. Some kinds of fossil-bearing rocks contain fossils of birds and other kinds do not. The oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fossils of many kinds of creeping things but do not contain any bird fossils. Is this accurate so far, do you think?

(ii) Do you think it's reasonable to conclude from this that there was a time when many different kinds of creeping living things flourished, but no birds?

(iii) Do you think it's reasonable to conclude from this that birds appeared later than the creeping things that had become fossilised in the older rocks which contain no bird fossils?

(iv) Where do you think birds came from?

Stanton:
you said:
"You are the one who is lying, and you are the one who is spreading misinformation on this thread. Given as how Evolutionary Biology has no holy text, no priesthood, no messiah, and no sacred rituals beyond performing experiments adhering to the scientific method and having peer-reviewed articles, the only way one can call the Theory"...

I did some research for youy :

The word religion is derived from Latin "religio" (what attaches or retains, moral bond, anxiety of self-consciousness, scruple) used by the Romans, before Jesus Christ, to indicate the worship of the demons.
The origin of "religio" is debated since antiquity. Cicero said it comes from "relegere" (to read again, to re-examine carefully, to gather) in the meaning "to carefully consider the things related to the worship of gods".
Later, Lucretius, Lactancius and Tertullianus see its origin in "religare" (to connect) to refer "the bond of piety that binds to God".
Initially used for Christianity, the use of the word religion gradually extended to all the forms of social demonstration in connection with sacred.

After site :http://atheisme.free.fr/Religion/What-is-religion-1.htm

Gav : Why should not we wrangle th words?
I would understan Crick's statement like this : life appearance in the fossil records is abrupt and borders with miracle : be it bacteria, birds,mammals.
I have a question for you before I answer yours, why do you think that some fossil bearing rocks "seem" ,as you stated "older than others". You see you are not sure there ..."seem". How did you worked that out ? If older how much older from one another? How did you measure age of those rocks ? Answer that , then we continue...

Stanton : I red entire article and did not find any sentence about God killing Irwin. It must be your evolutionary training that screws you up: you read a piece of text, reinterpret it and throw it back at your opponent. See my answer to Gav.
I wish you all the luck you need in you exams. You see ! I was bloody right ! You think that abusing creationist will help you with your career!.

I used to work for forensic cops here. I saw some really intelligent people in action. None ever stated that evolution helped them in anything.. Have a look around : can you name a company that has a department of evolution that would help in science advancement ?
You may consider a career in real research. Try to avoid evolutionism, it is sagging...

”Genetic variation can not add anything to the genome.” Are you seriously claiming that chromosome doubling, followed by mutation (common in plants) adds nothing to the genome? This is a frequent claim by IDists that flies in the face of the evidence. BTW, ‘genetic information’ is a term used almost exclusively by IDists and creationists but as they refuse to define what they mean it is, like the rest of ID, a useless concept. (If you want to attempt a definition, remember that there is a single-celled amoeba with considerably more genetic material than humans.)

You lack of understanding is embarrassing.If chromosomes were even quadrupling they would still contain pre existing information. Understood - pre existing there would be no new info added! Who teaches you biology ? LOL Frankly speaking this clip is worthy to be spread all over the net ! LOL

And another one for you Simons : "When you first appeared here, I assumed that you were struggling with English. Now I believe you just to be an uneducated dolt unaware of the depths of his own ignorance."

E is not my mother tongue either .Do you think that because you speak E , or run a spell check each time before you post a message you are not an ignorant ?. You poor misguided creature !! Your messages show quite otherwise.. !!
Do not flatter yourself : discussion with you is easy.I can answer your "sweatouts" eating my morning cereal..Few "typos"will happen in the heat of the moment LOL.If I'd reach for a thesaurus you would not understand a word considering how did you understand the stuff with chromosomes....

Sorry Guys I did go hard on you - you are just a bunch of kids.. I should have known better looking at those pretty pictures on your site. I hope that your server hit rate went up because of our heated discussion...

Andre, you are a lying hypocrite.
You honestly think you can just toss an insincere apology, thinking that it can make amends for all of the abusive lies you've heaped on us?

Furthermore, you fit the stereotype of the typical Christian Creationist I meet, who is a selfish, abusive solipsist who is arrogant to think that he knows all, and who refuses to be reminded that his opponents happen to be human, let alone also often fellow Christians, too.
Why should I believe that you're sincere in your apology, or even that English is your second language, even? You've continued to refuse to admit that I did, indeed provide actual lists of transitional forms, and you've refused to answer any of the questions I've asked of you, and when you've deigned to acknowledge my existence, you've been supremely arrogant and insulting, AND you've refused to admit that anything you've said was a lie.
And now you expect to patch things up with this "apology" of yours? To be truthful, I think it's just another trick of yours that you're setting up just to insult us and our collective intelligence again.

discussion with you is easy.I can answer your “sweatouts” eating my morning cereal.

If chromosomes were even quadrupling they would still contain pre existing information. Understood - pre existing there would be no new info added! Who teaches you biology ?

Andre I appreciate your coming back. Perhaps I should have said striving about words to no profit, rather than wrangling.

Please don't answer a question with another question, otherwise we are into striving to no profit. If you think that my summary in (i) of my earlier post does or does not map onto the evidence, then a plain yes or no will do.

I think this thread was over a long time ago. Take it to the forum people.