Fossil record fails to demonstrate evolution --punc-eq-- another

[Zilentnois]

Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development of
life from one type into another, some evolutionists theorize
that the process must have happened by jerks and starts, not
at a steady pace. As The World Book Encyclopedia explains:
“Many biologists think new species may be produced by sudden,
drastic changes in genes.”

Some adherents to this theory have called the process
“punctuated equilibrium.” That is, species maintain their
“equilibrium” (they stay much the same), but every once in a
while there is a “punctuation” (a big jump to evolve into
something else). This is just the opposite of the theory
that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists for many
decades. The gulf between the two theories was illustrated
by a headline in The New York Times: “Theory of Rapid
Evolution Attacked.” The article noted that the newer
“punctuated equilibrium” idea had “aroused new opposition”
among those who hold to the traditional view.

Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind
of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between
different types of life found in the fossil record, as well as
the gaps between different types of living things on earth
today, still persist.

[Pbamvv@Wor]

On 16 jun, 22:46, ZilentNoise
<ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
> Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development
> of life from one type into another, some evolutionists
> theorize that the process must have happened by jerks and
> starts, not at a steady pace. As The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: "Many biologists think new species may be produced
> by sudden, drastic changes in genes."
>
> Some adherents to this theory have called the process
> "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species maintain their
> "equilibrium" (they stay much the same), but every once in
> a while there is a "punctuation" (a big jump to evolve
> into something else). This is just the opposite of the
> theory that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists
> for many decades. The gulf between the two theories was
> illustrated by a headline in The New York Times: "Theory
> of Rapid Evolution Attacked." The article noted that the
> newer "punctuated equilibrium" idea had "aroused new
> opposition" among those who hold to the traditional view.
>
> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
> there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind
> of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between
> different types of life found in the fossil record, as well
> as the gaps between different types of living things on
> earth today, still persist.

1. In order to have the evidence you claim we need, we would
have to have fossils of every inidvidual that was part of
the change into another species. However fosilisationis not
a process that happens to all bones. Most bones will no be
fosilized.

2. The fosil record as it is DOES show evolution. It is clear
that in a layer on million years older or one million years
younger we ALWAYS finds differten species. Even a firm
believer in ID (or SD) would have to admit, that at least
the bleuprints of their supposerd Designer were evolving:)

Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands

PS if you read the contributions by Buddika you may notice
their is a lot of evidence in the current genes that make
I(ntellegent) D(esign) implausible. That is why I offer the
alternative of S(tupid) D(esign).

[Pbamvv@Wor]

On 16 jun, 23:17, ZilentNoise
<ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
> Also, it is revealing to see what has happened to Darwin's
> long-accepted idea regarding the "survival of the fittest."
> This he called "natural selection." That is, he believed
> that nature "selected" the fittest living things to survive.
> As these "fit" ones supposedly acquired new features that
> worked to their advantage, they slowly evolved. But the
> evidence of the past 125 years shows that, while the fittest
> may indeed survive, this does not explain how they arrived.
> One lion may be fitter than another lion, but that does not
> explain how he got to be a lion. And all of his offspring
> will still be lions, not something else.
>
> Thus, in Harper's magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented:
> "Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine
> his theory. And that mistake has only recently been
> recognized as such. . . . One organism may indeed be
> 'fitter' than another . . . This, of course, is not
> something which helps create the organism, . . . It is
> clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong
> with such an idea." Bethell added: "As I see it the
> conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's theory, I
> believe, is on the verge of collapse."

Are you meaning to say that no new species has come into
existence in the last 125 years? What if it had? Would we have
noticed? or would we have assumed it had been there already
without anyone noticing? The number of new species that were
discoverd in the last 125 years is staggering, but the total
is still small compared to the eons it had to develope.

You may have noticed that scientists have made progress since
Darwin firsts had is splendid Idea. We now know about genes.
We now know that natural variation is constantly growing,
mainly due to radioactive decay, and is only kept in check by
natural selection. We now know their is "junk" DNA that could
suddely become active if just one more gene changed it's
behaviour. We do as yet not know everything, and have a lot to
learn. But thus far no serious biologists has found anything
that doesn't point ar evolution.

I fact evolution has been directly wittnessed in virusses
that have become imune to anti-biotics that used to work
before. Evolution explain a lot, though not everything The
Alternative of "Intelligent" Design only adds another item
to be explained. The stupid Designer who actually
"designed" Junk-DNA.

Peter van Velzen June 2007 Amstelveen The Netherlands

[Zilentnois]

Also, it is revealing to see what has happened to Darwin’s
long-accepted idea regarding the “survival of the fittest.”
This he called “natural selection.” That is, he believed that
nature “selected” the fittest living things to survive. As
these “fit” ones supposedly acquired new features that worked
to their advantage, they slowly evolved. But the evidence of
the past 125 years shows that, while the fittest may indeed
survive, this does not explain how they arrived. One lion may
be fitter than another lion, but that does not explain how he
got to be a lion. And all of his offspring will still be
lions, not something else.

Thus, in Harper’s magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented:
“Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his
theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized
as such. . . . One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than
another . . . This, of course, is not something which helps
create the organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there
was something very, very wrong with such an idea.” Bethell
added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering:
Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse.”

[Mennia]

<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:1182027796.879393.255790@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> PS if you read the contributions by Buddika you may notice
> their is a lot of evidence in the current genes that make
> I(ntellegent) D(esign) implausible. That is why I offer
> the alternative of S(tupid) D(esign).
>

There's not one fundy willing to explain why an IDer would
create/design things like lice, ticks, chiggers, fleas,
bacterial and viral diseases that prey on and kill
us.............

[Zilentnois]

pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:

>
> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come into
> existence in the last 125 years?

No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do you
know of any?

[Timk]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...

> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
> there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind
> of life turns into another kind.

There is, and your utter failure to comprehend it does nothing
to invalidate
it.

DNA--->RNA--->Proteins.

idiot

[Atheist Ar]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
> Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development
> of life from one type into another, some evolutionists
> theorize that the process must have happened by jerks and
> starts, not at a steady pace. As The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: “Many biologists think new species may be produced
> by sudden, drastic changes in genes.”
>
> Some adherents to this theory have called the process
> “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, species maintain their
> “equilibrium” (they stay much the same), but every once in
> a while there is a “punctuation” (a big jump to evolve into
> something else). This is just the opposite of the theory
> that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists for many
> decades. The gulf between the two theories was illustrated
> by a headline in The New York Times: “Theory of Rapid
> Evolution Attacked.” The article noted that the newer
> “punctuated equilibrium” idea had “aroused new opposition”
> among those who hold to the traditional view.
>
> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
> there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind
> of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between
> different types of life found in the fossil record, as well
> as the gaps between different types of living things on
> earth today, still persist.

Wehewwww!!!!....Look at the God-Haters scatter on this one
Zilentnoise....hehehe

[Kelsey Bja]

[snips]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:49:29 -0500, DärFläken wrote:

>>> The AIDs and Ebola virus aren't alive? Dead or non
>>> existent viruses don't kill people.
>>
>> Just FMI... did those actually arise in the last 200 years,
>> or did they just _spread_ in that time?
>
> I read that they are new viruses. They were unknown until
> recent times.

Perhaps, but "unknown" isn't the same as "non-existent".
If, for example, ebola had existed for 10,000 years in some
backwater bit of the world where the only thing it affected
was the occasional monkey, it wouldn't be known until it
got out until recently, but it would not actually have
arisen recently.

I was under the impression that HIV was a relatively recent
offshoot of just such a monkey-specific virus, whereas ebola
had been around some time, but - perhaps because of its sheer
lethality - it hadn't spread.

--
'But a short time elapsed after the death of the great
reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were
departed from by those who professed to be his special
servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind,
and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State.' -
Thomas Jefferson, to S. Kercheval, 1810

[Budikka666]

On Jun 17, 2:11 pm, ZilentNoise
<ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
> Bill M wrote:
> > Get an education. Evolutionary scientists do NOT claim
> > that evolution is the constant change of living things.
>
> You sure? many of your buddies here says that it is.

Enough of your unsupported bullshit.

What do *you* claim happened and where is your science
supporting your claims?

Budikka

[Lorentz]

> How does it travel from one culture to another? Wouldn't
> that be caused =
by
> some type of cross-contamination due to human error?
Sure. However, the HeLa strains seem to take advantage of
the human error better than other cell strains. This is by
definition a fitness advantage. The protocols adapted to
avoid croos contamination have not worked as well against
the HeLa strain, so stricter protocols have had to be
introduced. If natural selection wasn't involved, than all
the cell lines would be equally infectious. The HeLa cells
have not grown little wings and learned to fly from host
to host. They are more resilient than other cell lines.
Some HeLa strains may have even adapted a dormancy stage.
In any case, they seem to have a selective advantage. Very
few pathogens move on their own power from host to host.
They get sneezed away, coughed away, they pass on contact
through sores, etc. Each pathogen is still considered "a
form of life."

For more information on HeLa read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

I quote the following from the above link:

"Due to their ability to replicate indefinitely, and their
abnormal number of chromosomes, Leigh Van Valen
controversially described HeLa as an example of the
contemporary creation of a new species, Helacyton gartleri,
named after Stanley M. Gartler, who Van Valen credits with
discovering "the remarkable success of this species". His
argument for speciation depends on three points: =B7 The
chromosomal incompatibility of HeLa cells with humans. =B7 The
ecological niche of HeLa cells. =B7 Their ability to persist
and expand well beyond the desires of human cultivators. As
well as proposing a new species for HeLa cells, Van Valen
proposes in the same paper that the new family Helacytidae and
the genus Helacyton."

I have the feeling that Gartler may have gotten this
dubious distinction by introducing more human error than
is usual in raising cell lines.

[Lorentz]

> Rather than produce their own evidence for a magical
> creation they try to disprove the solid science behind
> what is know of evolution. Has even one fundy produced
> even one small shred of evidence of a creation, a god or a
> demon? Nope!
>
Have they provided one example in the last 200 years
where a diety has breathed life into a clod of earth? I
mean, there has been not reason provided for God to stop
what he is doing. Ask them to provide one example of
special creation, from nonlife, evident in the last 200
years. I think that we have provided enough examples of
one life form generating a modification of itself. They
can at least show us their version of abiogenesis. Can
they bring a clod of earth to life by prayer, or get a
diety to do so?

[Matt Silbe]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:46:54 GMT, in alt.atheism ,
ZilentNoise <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> in
<2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03> wrote:

>Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development
>of life from one type into another, some evolutionists
>theorize that the process must have happened by jerks and
>starts, not at a steady pace.

Jabriol, by now you have to know this is false. Even Gould and
Eldredge said in the initial paper that such transitions were
*relatively* rare: they exist but not as many as would be
expected if evolution (that is to say gross morphological
change) occurred everywhere at a constant rate.

> As The World Book Encyclopedia explains: “Many biologists
> think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes
> in genes.”

> Some adherents to this theory have called the process
> “punctuated equilibrium.”

Punk Eek says that most species spends most of there existence
with very little morphological change.

>That is, species maintain their “equilibrium” (they stay much
>the same),

That is not what it means, it means that most of the time we
don't see much morphological change.

>but every once in a while there is a “punctuation” (a big
>jump to evolve into something else). This is just the
>opposite of the theory that has been accepted by nearly all
>evolutionists for many decades.

No, it is not the opposite. It is a question of relative
rates and relative importance of various methods of
speciation. G&E postulated that most species change very
little and that most gross morphological change occurs in
smaller isolated populations. In fact Darwin suggested
something like this, but it took some time until we had
enough tools to explore this question.

>The gulf between the two theories was illustrated by a
>headline in The New York Times: “Theory of Rapid Evolution
>Attacked.” The article noted that the newer “punctuated
>equilibrium” idea had “aroused new opposition” among those
>who hold to the traditional view.

The NYT is not the best way to learn science.

>Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
>there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind
>of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between
>different types of life found in the fossil record, as well
>as the gaps between different types of living things on earth
>today, still persist.

And there is plenty of evidence for this. Evidence you have
been shown. If you spent half the time learning this subject
you would have a respectable body of knowledge by now, instead
you just repeat falsehoods and refuse to learn.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

[Lorentz]

On Jun 18, 5:43 am, ZilentNoise
<ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
> Lorentzwrote:
> >>>> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do
> >>>> you know of any?
> >>> HIV
> >> HIVis a virus, viruses and retro-viruses has been around
> >> for a long time. ...
>
> >> try again
>
> > This is a cop out. If evolution is a real process, the
> > new life form will always be modification of a life
> > form that came before.
>
> Demonstrate this with the scientific method.
Uhhh, this is the definition of evolution. Which is the
hypothesis that you Creationist types are trying to
disprove. If you don't accept the hypothesis as a
hypothesis, then there is no way to prove it wrong. Or
right. Darwin actually called his theory "descent with
modification." That is the hypothesis. You can not
scientifically demonstrate that this is a hypothesis.
Even if you are lucky, you can only demonstrate that the
hypothesis is right or wrong.

I'll put it this way. I accept that there has been no
form of life that has been created in the last 200
years. I have demonstrated the modification of a form of
life equivalent of that from human being to protozoa.
However, the protozoa-like creature is not a new life
form. You have accepted the reality of the change, but
you have designated the protozoa-like creature to be an
old life form. In other words, you have accepted the
existence of evolution in its most atheist sense but you
have not accepted that the Tasmanian devil cell is new.
According to you, there is no significant difference
between a cell that lives independently and a cell that
lives in a multicellular body. You have convinced me
that there has not been a new form of life on earth for
two billion years. Therefore, there can not be any
animal life on this planet. All the so called advanced
life-forms are protozoa, not significantly different
from the first protozoa. There are only communities of
protozoa, some of whom have built computers and post
messages on newsgroups. There is still "descent with
modification." You have not demonsrated the necessity of
God as an explanation. But you have logically developed
the idea that there is no animal life, and never was.
Congratulations!

[Zilentnois]

TimK wrote:
> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
> news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
>
>> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
>> there should be at least some evidence to show that one
>> kind of life turns into another kind.
>
> There is, and your utter failure to comprehend it does
> nothing to invalidate
> it.
>
> DNA--->RNA--->Proteins.
>
> idiot
>
>

Really, and this was duplicated in what lab?

[Zilentnois]

TimK wrote:
> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
> news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
>
>> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
>> there should be at least some evidence to show that one
>> kind of life turns into another kind.
>
> There is, and your utter failure to comprehend it does
> nothing to invalidate
> it.
>
> DNA--->RNA--->Proteins.
>
> idiot
>
>

by the way.. since when proteins are consider ---a new for
of life---

[Timk]

"Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stooges@Yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:46748b85$0$491$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>
>
> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
> news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
>> Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development
>> of life from one type into another, some evolutionists
>> theorize that the process must have happened by jerks and
>> starts, not at a steady pace. As The World Book
>> Encyclopedia explains: “Many biologists think new species
>> may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes.”
>>
>> Some adherents to this theory have called the process
>> “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, species maintain their
>> “equilibrium” (they stay much the same), but every once in
>> a while there is a “punctuation” (a big jump to evolve
>> into something else). This is just the opposite of the
>> theory that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists
>> for many decades. The gulf between the two theories was
>> illustrated by a headline in The New York Times: “Theory
>> of Rapid Evolution Attacked.” The article noted that the
>> newer “punctuated equilibrium” idea had “aroused new
>> opposition” among those who hold to the traditional view.
>>
>> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
>> there should be at least some evidence to show that one
>> kind of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between
>> different types of life found in the fossil record, as well
>> as the gaps between different types of living things on
>> earth today, still persist.
>
> Wehewwww!!!!....Look at the God-Haters scatter on this one
> Zilentnoise....hehehe

Look at the halfwit who thinks that accepting science equals
"god hater" - what a sad little sack of shit you are.

[Timk]

"The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN." <hugh.jarse@heathens.org.uk>
wrote in message
news:1182071957.000091.292900@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 9:46 pm, ZilentNoise
> <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
>> Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development
>> of life from one type into another, some evolutionists
>> theorize that the process must have happened by jerks and
>> starts, not at a steady pace. As The World Book
>> Encyclopedia explains: "Many biologists think new species
>> may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes."
>>
> Jabbertroll, we are all transitional forms. In fact, you're
> living proof that evolution is not only a blind process, it
> is bi- directional.

Heh, jabbers is bi...

[Timk]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:uM%ci.563$bn6.436@trnddc03...
> TimK wrote:
>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
>>
>>> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
>>> there should be at least some evidence to show that one
>>> kind of life turns into another kind.
>>
>> There is, and your utter failure to comprehend it does
>> nothing to invalidate it.
>>
>> DNA--->RNA--->Proteins.
>>
>> idiot
>
> Really, and this was duplicated in what lab?

You fucking moron

[Timk]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:pN%ci.565$bn6.427@trnddc03...
> TimK wrote:
>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
>>
>>> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
>>> there should be at least some evidence to show that one
>>> kind of life turns into another kind.
>>
>> There is, and your utter failure to comprehend it does
>> nothing to invalidate it.
>>
>> DNA--->RNA--->Proteins.
>>
>> idiot
>
> by the way.. since when proteins are consider ---a new for
> of life---

They aren't dipshit. But change them around enough
(particularly special types of proteins called e n z y m e s)
and you get a new species. How do you get yourself dressed in
the morning.

[Brian E .]

In article <trYci.537$bn6.497@trnddc03>, ZilentNoise said...

> Thus, in Harper=3Fs magazine, writer Tom Bethell

Oh, please. Tom Bethell is the Ann Coulter of scientific
criticism.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Brian E .]

In article <trYci.537$bn6.497@trnddc03>, ZilentNoise said...

> That is, he believed that nature "selected" the fittest
> living things to survive. As these "fit" ones supposedly
> acquired new features that worked to their advantage, they
> slowly evolved.

What theory are you describing here? It certainly isn't any
theory of evolution that Darwin ever proposed. In evolutionary
theory, populations evolve, not individuals.

> But the evidence of the past 125 years shows that, while the
> fittest may indeed survive, this does not explain how they
> arrived.

Arrived where? Certainly you can't mean "arrived" in a literal
sense, since biogeography is an important part of evolutionary
theorizing, and evolutionary biologists most certainly do seek
to explain why lions live where they do.

> One lion may be fitter than another lion, but that does not
> explain how he got to be a lion.

"Lion" is a species designation we assign to a particular
group of creatures. That group has a collection of genes, a
collection which changes from generation to generation. "Lion"
is not some eternal, Platonic ideal.

If you're saying that evolution cannot explain how lions
came to have claws and manes, fast legs for running and
digestive systems fashioned for processing meat, then you're
simply mistaken.

> And all of his offspring will still be lions, not
> something else.

Again, if you think your comment speaks against evolution,
you've been miseducated.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Brian E .]

In article <pan.2007.06.17.01.11.23.334181 @com.mkbilbo>, Mark
K. Bilbo said...

> > Thus, in Harper's magazine
>
> What's next? You gonna quote People magazine?

Or National Review, to which Tom Bethell is a contributor.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Kathy]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:C9adi.417$%t6.71@trnddc02...
>
> Plainly, the evidence accumulated over many decades has
> forced evolution to retreat on many fronts. Facing the facts
> honestly leads to only one conclusion.

What conclusion Antonio? A supernatural CREATION? A natural
CREATION? How about a magical CREATION? You just posted
that you don't believe in the Genesis account of Creation
so what are you getting at by illegally plagiarizing the
Watchtower material?

[~ SäBlë ~]

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
message news:Xns995377B5124A1doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
> ZilentNoise <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
> news:nXtdi.4378$%t6.3611@trnddc02:
On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is
>> actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden
>> creative act in which the major forms of life were
>> established fits best."-Liberty, September/October
>> 1975, p. 12.

Note the DATE! He's still living in the Watchtower Society
past. The most recent C&P was 1982.

--
SA......... (Solicitation to murder by Antonio L
Santana/Camden NJ) ---- Original Message ----- From:
"Zhavriol" aka Jabriol aka Antonio L Santana
zodriol@gmail.com Antonio L Santana/Camden NJ cong of
Jehovah's Witnesses. Subject: Carol Adamo Gulley -she is
tired of living, please help her

> Maybe they are people out there who wants you to rejoined
> your loved departed ones. Let me help them find you so they
> can help you out: Carolyn Adamo Gulley XXXX XXXX XXXXX
< XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

> (victim's phone #, address, maps to her home supplied by Mr.
> Santana snicked).
==================================

[Timk]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:pfZci.550$bn6.470@trnddc03...
> pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come into
>> existence in the last 125 years?
>
> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do you
> know of any?

sigh <rolls eyes

[Ralph]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:pfZci.550$bn6.470@trnddc03...
> pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come into
>> existence in the last 125 years?
>
> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do you
> know of any?

You

[The Aposta]

"ZilentNoise" aka Antonio L. Santana aka JABRIOL
<ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:Obsdi.4366$%t6.1801@trnddc02...
>
> And can this demonstrated via the scientific method?

Can MURDER Antonio?

>
(Solicitation to murder by Antonio L Santana/Camden NJ) ----
Original Message ----- From: "Zhavriol" aka Jabriol aka
Antonio L Santana zodriol@gmail.com Antonio L Santana/Camden
NJ cong of Jehovah's Witnesses. Subject: Carol Adamo Gulley
-she is tired of living, please help her

> Maybe they are people out there who wants you to rejoined
> your loved departed ones. Let me help them find you so they
> can help you out: Carolyn Adamo Gulley XXXX XXXX XXXXX
< XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

> (victim's phone #, address, maps to her home supplied by Mr.
> Santana snicked).

[Siteldawgn]

ZilentNoise <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
news:Fgsdi.4369$%
t6.3949@trnddc02:

> Siteldawgnumber1 wrote:
>> ZilentNoise <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
>> news:%Mfdi.4279$%
>> t6.1880@trnddc02:
>>
>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>> 666 items of evidence for macroevolution: Example 1:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
>>>>
>>> A usenet thread is Evidence? What are you smoking woman?
>>>
>>
>> Hi, Tony!
>>
>> How are things in the Garden State?
>
> going good. We have governor who doesn't obey traffic
> laws... how
things
> at AOL?
>

Same old AOL, but it's cheap. ;>D

[Zilentnois]

TimK wrote:
> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
> news:pfZci.550$bn6.470@trnddc03...
>> pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
>>
>>> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come into
>>> existence in the last 125 years?
>> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do you
>> know of any?
>
> sigh <rolls eyes>
>
>

have you seen any?

[invalid]

“We still know little of protozoan evolution.”—Introduction to
Protozoology, page 42, Manwell.

[Timk]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:TL%ci.562$bn6.290@trnddc03...
> TimK wrote:
>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:pfZci.550$bn6.470@trnddc03...
>>> pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come into
>>>> existence in the last 125 years?
>>> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do you
>>> know of any?
>>
>> sigh <rolls eyes>
>>
>>
>
> have you seen any?

Yes. You would too if you had any background in this.

[invalid]

"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:GIFdi.4482$%t6.453@trnddc02...
>
>
> “We still know little of protozoan evolution.”—Introduction
> to Protozoology, page 42, Manwell.

Poor Jabriol has to criminally resort to impersonating others
to bypass killfiles and be heard now.

NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.210.146 --> Antonio L
Santana/jabriol X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net --> If it's
Verizon = it's jabbers

[invalid]

“The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith
postulates its existence but the type fails to
materialize.”—Plant Life Through the Ages, Seward.

[Ips-Switch]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:s2udi.4379$%t6.796@trnddc02...
> <BITCH SLAP!!!!!!!!!>

C&Paste:

Find messages by this author Check your logs for all messages
from the following originating IP

151.204.216.182 Verizon.net 1173824935 28111 127.0.0.1

This account is being monitored for Child Pornography activity
by Anti-child Porn organizations. If you are located in the
USA, your service may be investigated by Federal authorities.

Spamm from those accounts are inthe following newsgroups:

alt.talk.creationism

alt.atheism alt.religion.jehovahs-witns rec.ponds
free.christians talk.christian.religion.jehovahs-witn

The spammer nym-shift to avoid kill files and filters. The
Spammer has sent more than 100 MCP and ECP to these groups.
Please take action in the next 24 hours or you will be
reported to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting and you will
never be ale to run a server again. Please read
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ's talk

The same originating IP has been responsivle for a NoCem Alert
The NoCeM protocol and clients see http://www.cm.org/

Please review:

The following NoCeM notice lists articles which have been
determined to be excessively posted. This determination is
made by applying the normal spam thresholds to all encoded
(base64 or uuencoded) entities present in the article.
(Entities under a minimum size are ignored unless they
constitute most of the article body.)

This is a newly-detected spam.

The additional information provided is:
# ORIGIN-SITE NNTP-POSTING-HOST 151.204.216.182
# TRACKING-ID BI/DAYS

Complaint addresses (for tracking only, do not use):
verizon.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS Version: 0.9 Issuer:
annihila...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk Type: spam Action: hide
Notice-ID: binnew.20021021210432 Hierarchies:
acc,alt,alt.binaries Count: 7 @@BEGIN NCM BODY
# Verizon.net 151.204.216.182 jtQmrZaFIfFMRSA9YuWzjA==
# 21.304/5
<cDAr9.5520$NV...@verizon.net>
alt.binaires.pictures.erotica.teen alt.binaries.erotica.fetish
alt.binaries.erotica.sex.in.the.morning
alt.binaries.pictures.child.erotica.female
alt.binaries.pictures.child.erotica.male
alt.binaries.pictures.cocks alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.fuck
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.transvestites

# Verizon.net 151.204.216.182 jtQmrZaFIfFMRSA9YuWzjA==
# 21.304/5
<Pgks9.6177$NV.111...@verizon.net>
alt.religion.christian.baptist alt.religion.christianity
alt.religion.gnostic.orders alt.religion.goddess
alt.religion.gods alt.religion.hindu alt.religion.islam
alt.religion.islam.shia alt.religion.jaffo
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn alt.religion.sexuality
# Verison.net 151.204.216.182 jtQmrZaFIfFMRSA9YuWzjA==
# 21.304/5
<lahs9.5872$NV.109...@verizon.net>
alt.binaires.pictures.erotica.teen alt.binaries.erotica.fetish
alt.binaries.erotica.sex.in.the.morning
alt.binaries.pictures.child.erotica.female
alt.binaries.pictures.child.erotica.male
alt.binaries.pictures.cocks alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.fuck
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.transvestites
# Verizon.net 151.204.216.182 jtQmrZaFIfFMRSA9YuWzjA==
# 21.304/5
<obis9.5980$NV.110...@veriszon.net>
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.transexual.action
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.transvestites
# Verizon.net 151.204.216.182 jtQmrZaFIfFMRSA9YuWzjA==
# 21.304/5
<1IWs9.7257$NV.125...@verizon.net> alt.personal
alt.personal.ads alt.personals alt.personals.ads
alt.personals.aliens alt.personals.asian alt.personals.bi
alt.personals.bi.newjersey alt.personals.big-folk
alt.personals.big-folks alt.personals.homosexual
alt.religion.sexuality alt.support.impotence
alt.support.depression alt.support.depression.teens
# Verizon.net jtQmrZaFIfFMRSA9YuWzjA== 21.304/5
<OiXs9.7361$NV.125...@verizon.net>
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.female.fuck
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.female.masterbation
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.female.masturbation
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.female.orgasm
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.fuck
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.male
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teensex
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.torture.alt.binaries.pictures
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.transexual.action
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.transvestites @@END NCM BODY

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i -
151.204.216.182 Charset: noconv

iQBVAwUBPbRr4QFKZ9wCIW3ZAQF30gIAmqM0ClmpjwJKUpawQxnNCC40wLDYW-
ufY eb+QGSSuJWn7S787YMSmRoEdxjy1kEqClXBdNWWwrnPXPe8cD6jvsw==

Reply Reply to author/jabriol@verizon.net Forward

[The Aposta]

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:Rbudi.4381$%t6.3858@trnddc02...

(Solicitation to murder by Antonio L Santana/Everett
ST,Camden NJ)

---- Original Message ----- From: "Zhavriol" aka Jabriol aka
Antonio L Santana zodriol@gmail.com Antonio L Santana/Camden
NJ cong of Jehovah's Witnesses. Subject: Carol Adamo Gulley
-she is tired of living, please help her

> Maybe they are people out there who wants you to rejoined
> your loved departed ones. Let me help them find you so they
> can help you out: Carolyn Adamo Gulley XXXX XXXX XXXXX
< XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

> (victim's phone #, address, maps to her home supplied by Mr.
> Santana snicked).
=========================

>
> In that last thread Carolyn Gulley has changed NYM and
> started with two new ones... why do atheists morphs?
>
> explanation right here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2wg8j5

[D?Rfl?Ken]

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:943jk4-3q3.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:49:29 -0500, DärFläken wrote:
>
>>>> The AIDs and Ebola virus aren't alive? Dead or non
>>>> existent viruses don't kill people.
>>>
>>> Just FMI... did those actually arise in the last 200
>>> years, or did they just _spread_ in that time?
>>
>> I read that they are new viruses. They were unknown until
>> recent times.
>
> Perhaps, but "unknown" isn't the same as "non-existent". If,
> for example, ebola had existed for 10,000 years in some
> backwater bit of the world where the only thing it affected
> was the occasional monkey, it wouldn't be known until it got
> out until recently, but it would not actually have arisen
> recently.

This is true but we don't KNOW that.

>
> I was under the impression that HIV was a relatively recent
> offshoot of just such a monkey-specific virus, whereas ebola
> had been around some time, but - perhaps because of its
> sheer lethality - it hadn't spread.

Recent offshoot = form of evolution.

DF........ (Solicitation to murder by Antonio L Santana/Camden
NJ) ---- Original Message ----- From: "Zhavriol" aka
Jabriol aka Antonio L Santana zodriol@gmail.com Antonio L
Santana/Camden NJ cong of Jehovah's Witnesses. Subject:
Carol Adamo Gulley -she is tired of living, please help her

> Maybe they are people out there who wants you to rejoined
> your loved departed ones. Let me help them find you so they
> can help you out: Carolyn Adamo Gulley XXXX XXXX XXXXX
< XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

> (victim's phone #, address, maps to her home supplied by Mr.
> Santana snicked).
=========================

[Brian E .]

In article <VJFdi.4483$%t6.729@trnddc02>, 1 said...

> "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our
> faith postulates its existence but the type fails to
> materialize." =3FPlant Life Through the Ages, Seward.

Are you quoting the botanist A.C. Seward, who died in *1941*?

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Mennia]

"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:VJFdi.4483$%t6.729@trnddc02...

Herr jabbers's on impersonation kick again.

NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.210.146 X-Complaints-To:
abuse@verizon.net

>
>
> “The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our
> faith postulates its existence but the type fails to
> materialize.”—Plant Life Through the Ages, Seward.

[Kathy]

"Lorentz" <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182177685.570380.38270@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> > Okay, here is another try. The Tasmanian devil is a
>> > marsupial animal that is being decimated by a new
>> > disease that no one had seen before. It seems to have
>> > arisen in the last ten years. It is a form of cancer.
>>
>> Cancer is cancer... try again.
>
> Exactly my point. You will always claim that the form of
> life isn't new, no matter how extreme the difference is.

He's a typical Jehovah's Witness CREATIONIST and all you will
get are creationist anti-evolution replies from him. Never
mind he now claims the Watchtower Society, getting ever more
"new light" straight from Jehovah, tells them not to take
Genesis literally. Well if we didn't evolve and we weren't
magically created.... where the heck did we come from?

[D?Rfl?Ken]

Yeah Carol I am out to kill you, if that what you want to
*believe* so be it. You will die tonight at 12:45 am.

The Apostate wrote:
>
> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
> news:Rbudi.4381$%t6.3858@trnddc02...
>
> (Solicitation to murder by Antonio L Santana/Everett
> ST,Camden NJ)
>
> ---- Original Message ----- From: "Zhavriol" aka Jabriol aka
> Antonio L Santana zodriol@gmail.com Antonio L Santana/Camden
> NJ cong of Jehovah's Witnesses. Subject: Carol Adamo Gulley
> -she is tired of living, please help her
>
>> Maybe they are people out there who wants you to rejoined
>> your loved departed ones. Let me help them find you so they
>> can help you out: Carolyn Adamo Gulley XXXX XXXX XXXXX
> < XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX
>
>> (victim's phone #, address, maps to her home supplied by
>> Mr. Santana snicked).
> =========================
>
>>
>> In that last thread Carolyn Gulley has changed NYM and
>> started with two new ones... why do atheists morphs?
>>
>> explanation right here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2wg8j5

[Mennia]

"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
message news:MPG.20e0f63629f158f698a659@216.196.97.136...
> In article <VJFdi.4483$%t6.729@trnddc02>, 1 said...
>
>> "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our
>> faith postulates its existence but the type fails to
>> materialize." =3FPlant Life Through the Ages, Seward.
>
> Are you quoting the botanist A.C. Seward, who died in
> *1941*?

You're replying to Antonio L. Santana aka JABRIOL
impersonating DarFlaken.

>
> --
> -----------
> Brian E. Clark

[Mennia]

Brian E. Clark wrote:
> In article <VJFdi.4483$%t6.729@trnddc02>, 1 said...
>
>> "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our
>> faith postulates its existence but the type fails to
>> materialize." =3FPlant Life Through the Ages, Seward.
>
> Are you quoting the botanist A.C. Seward, who died in
> *1941*?
>

You guys belive in TOE by Darwin who died in Apr. 19, 1882, so
what is your point?

[~ S?Bl? ~]

"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CIEdi.4470$%t6.1979@trnddc02...
> Yeah Carol I am out to kill you, if that what you want to
> *believe* so be
> it. You will die tonight at 12:45 am.

Antonio... I give you my word. It wouldn't bother me one bit
to blow your head off with the 30:06 should you threaten me in
person! That is after I turn the dogs on your cowardly
criminal @$$. You've threatened us for two years now - if
anyone is going to die it will be you, a useless human weed
and parasite on society by your own admission.
--
SA..... "Jabriol wants to be loved; failing this, to be
admired; failing this, to be feared; failing even this, to be
hated and despised. Jabriol wants to arouse some sort of
feeling in people. The soul shrinks from the void and wants
contact at any price." ~ Hjalmar Soderberg ~
==========================================================

[Lorentz]

> > Okay, here is another try. The Tasmanian devil is a
> > marsupial animal that is being decimated by a new
> > disease that no one had seen before. It seems to have
> > arisen in the last ten years. It is a form of cancer.
>
> Cancer is cancer... try again.

Exactly my point. You will always claim that the form of
life isn't new, no matter how extreme the difference is.
The question is a cheat. Even when the organism was
extremely different, you simply waved your hand and made
the difference dissappear. However, it is semantic
sleight-of-hand. Just a polemic form of magic trick. A
pathogen is not a cancer. When I said it was a cancer, I
was referring to its origin. Calling it a cancer is
dishonest. The new organism is a pathogen. It jumps between
individuals. It has a behavior that helps it spread (the
sores on the Tasmanian devil). It is just as much a form of
life as smallpox. According to any honest evaluation, it is
a new form of life that evolved in the last few decades.

[Phil Macdo]

smokin weed?

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
> Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development
> of life from one type into another, some evolutionists
> theorize that the process must have happened by jerks and
> starts, not at a steady pace. As The World Book Encyclopedia
> explains: “Many biologists think new species may be produced
> by sudden, drastic changes in genes.”
>
> Some adherents to this theory have called the process
> “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, species maintain their
> “equilibrium” (they stay much the same), but every once in
> a while there is a “punctuation” (a big jump to evolve into
> something else). This is just the opposite of the theory
> that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists for many
> decades. The gulf between the two theories was illustrated
> by a headline in The New York Times: “Theory of Rapid
> Evolution Attacked.” The article noted that the newer
> “punctuated equilibrium” idea had “aroused new opposition”
> among those who hold to the traditional view.
>
> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
> there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind
> of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between
> different types of life found in the fossil record, as well
> as the gaps between different types of living things on
> earth today, still persist.

[Zilentnois]

Dave Oldridge wrote:

> Of course latter-day creationism is not about REASONABLE
> doubt. It's about isolating the arch-heretics' followers
> from the rest of humanity by engaging them in a false
> crusade against reality. It's an old, old trick and the
> devil is still quite good at it.
>
>

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian
period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major
groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first
appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever
recorded on our planet.”—(California,
1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p.
649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian
period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the
progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we
do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of
evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be
said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at
the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October
1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from
simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these
full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found;
but they have not been found and scientists admit there is
little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the
facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the
earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major
forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty,
September/October 1975, p. 12.

[Siteldawgn]

"Phil MacDouglass" <mary_s@weyland-yutani.com> wrote in
news:i5nei.3136$Rw1.1496@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> smokin weed?

Tony is anti-weed. However...oh...nevermind.

>
> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
> news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
>> Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development
>> of life from one type into another, some evolutionists
>> theorize that the process must have happened by jerks and
>> starts, not at a steady
pace.
>> As The World Book Encyclopedia explains: “Many biologists
>> think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic
>> changes in genes.”
>>
>> Some adherents to this theory have called the process
>> “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, species maintain their
>> “equilibrium” (they stay much the same), but every once in
>> a while there is a “punctuation” (a big jump to evolve
>> into something else). This is just the opposite of the
>> theory that has been accepted by nearly
all
>> evolutionists for many decades. The gulf between the two
>> theories
was
>> illustrated by a headline in The New York Times: “Theory of
>> Rapid Evolution Attacked.” The article noted that the newer
>> “punctuated equilibrium” idea had “aroused new opposition”
>> among those who hold to the traditional view.
>>
>> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
>> there should be at least some evidence to show that one
>> kind of life
turns
>> into another kind. But the gaps between different types
>> of life
found
>> in the fossil record, as well as the gaps between
>> different types
of
>> living things on earth today, still persist.
>>
>

[Zilentnois]

The fossil record gives another important kind of evidence
that belies evolution. The process of evolution is described
as “the constant change of living things.� But innumerable
fossils are found in ancient strata that, like the lungfish,
are identifiable with modern species. Imprints of leaves of
oak, walnut, hickory, grape, magnolia, palm, and many other
trees and shrubs, left on rocks of Mesozoic age and since, are
not different from those leaves today. The millions of years,
as estimated by geologists, since they first appeared have
left them without any evolutionary change. Likewise, hundreds
of insects left their mark in Mesozoic rocks. These imprints
show them to have been quite similar to species of the same
insects we have now. As the evolutionist puts it, “Insect
evolution had been essentially completed by the end of the
Mesozoic�—the era in which they first appeared.

Can such fossil evidence honestly be claimed to support the
theory that environmental pressures bring about a continual
change in species and produce new ones? Or does it not rather
give the strongest support to the principle that each species,
once created, brings forth only its own kind? Yes, and it has
continued to do so generation after generation throughout all
the millenniums of time.

[Zilentnois]

atheists lied about JW's under investigation:

http://tinyurl.com/2q6c22

[Zilentnois]

In that last thread Carolyn Gulley has changed NYM and started
with two new ones... why do atheists morphs?

explanation right here:

http://tinyurl.com/2wg8j5

[Kelsey Bja]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:02:40 +0000, ZilentPanzer wrote:

>> We don't 'belive' in TOE by Darwin, as you so quaintly put
>> it. He, along with Alfred Wallace, came up with a
>> scientific theory to explain the richness of life on Earth.
>
>
> Which can not be demonstrated by the scientific method.

Except that it can, so your comment is either a display of
ignorance or a display of dishonesty - you decide which.

--
Power is one thing...the wisdom to wield it quite
another. - Satan

[Dave Oldri]

ZilentNoise <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
news:nXtdi.4378$%t6.3611@trnddc02:

> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
>> Of course latter-day creationism is not about REASONABLE
>> doubt. It's about isolating the arch-heretics' followers
>> from the rest of humanity by engaging them in a false
>> crusade against reality. It's an old, old trick and the
>> devil is still quite good at it.
>>
>>
>
> A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the
> Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years,
> all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made
> their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in
> diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981),
> Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

So what? It was preceded by a very severe ice age, if I
remember.

> Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian
> period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which
> the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But
> we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of
> evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably
> be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation
> at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History,
> October 1959, p. 467.

That was then. There is now a growing list of Vendian fossils
that include some precursers of the Cambrian fauna.

> Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution
> from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these
> full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found;
> but they have not been found and scientists admit there is
> little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of
> the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in
> the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the
> major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty,
> September/October 1975, p. 12.

Yes, a sudden creative act lasting tens of millions of years.
Certainly an EVOLVING fauna.

But then, as I stated, REASONABLE doubt is not what
creationism is about. It's about dogmatic adherence to a
ritual formula about the meaning and importance of the book of
Genesis--one not shared by the Church.

--
Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667

[Zilentnois]

TimK wrote:
> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
> news:de9di.264$%t6.76@trnddc02...
>
>> And I am not even a creationist.
>
> all you are is a fucking troll <plonk>
>
>

the almighty plonk--- tool of a coward who can't support his
argument. This is because he doesn't have any.

[Zilentnois]

TimK wrote:
> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
> news:%f9di.265$%t6.263@trnddc02...
>> TimK wrote:
>>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
>>> news:TL%ci.562$bn6.290@trnddc03...
>>>> TimK wrote:
>>>>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:pfZci.550$bn6.470@trnddc03...
>>>>>> pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come
>>>>>>> into existence in the last 125 years?
>>>>>> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do
>>>>>> you know of any?
>>>>> sigh <rolls eyes>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> have you seen any?
>>> Yes. You would too if you had any background in this.
>> it is extensive in biology. Now then present some evidence
>> of new life form which has evolved in front of human eyes.
>
> You fucking liar - if you had any extensive background in
> biology you could spit out some Latin names of your own

Hate to tell you this guy, Latin is a dead tongue. But thanks
for proving my point..

[Brian E .]

In article <yyNdi.4514$%t6.340@trnddc02>, Mennia said...

> > Are you quoting the botanist A.C. Seward, who died in
> > *1941*?
> >
>
> You guys belive in TOE by Darwin who died in Apr. 19, 1882,

No, people accept (provisionally) the state of evolutionary
science in 2007. Darwin got a lot right, but much has changed
since 1859.

> so what is your point?

Creationist writers knowingly rely on obsolete quotes in their
attempts to discredit evolution. If Seward's comment were
still a fair reflection of botanical knowledge, there would be
no harm. But the gaps Seward lamented have been filled in --
not that this prevents Creationists from using outdated
commentary to misrepresent modern science.

A secondary point: many Creationists in the pews, coming as
they do from a background that treats the words of a founder,
his apostles and his early proponents as primary, become
confused when they're told that assailing Darwin accomplishes
nothing. To disprove evolution, they would have to confute the
myriad evidences that we have in hand today, and they would
have to overturn modern theories. This is the opposite of the
case that prevails among many Christian denominations; should
it turn out the Jesus did not exist, for instance, the
literalist Christian sects would be instantly deprived of
foundation.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Ips-Switch]

"Mennia" impersonated by the criminal known as JABRIOL/Antonio
Santana<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:yyNdi.4514$%t6.340@trnddc02...
>
> You guys belive in TOE by Darwin who died in Apr. 19, 1882,
> so what is your point?

Note please how JABRIOL uses other people's nyms to bypass
killfiles and how he ALWAYS misses the *point.*

[Ips-Switch]

"Wombat" <trigby@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:1182268237.581705.314510@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Jun, 11:42, Mennia <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> You guys belive in TOE by Darwin who died in Apr. 19, 1882,
>> so what is your point?

>> To quote you, what is your effing point?
>

His point is to harass the legitimate poster he's
impersonating to bypass your killfiles and get replies.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:45:02 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:02:40 +0000, ZilentPanzer wrote:
>
>>> We don't 'belive' in TOE by Darwin, as you so quaintly put
>>> it. He, along with Alfred Wallace, came up with a
>>> scientific theory to explain the richness of life on
>>> Earth.
>>
>>
>> Which can not be demonstrated by the scientific method.
>
>Except that it can, so your comment is either a display of
>ignorance or a display of dishonesty - you decide which.

Jabbers is both ignorant and dishonest, so take your pick. <G

[Zilentknig]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:02:40 +0000, ZilentPanzer wrote:
>
>>> We don't 'belive' in TOE by Darwin, as you so quaintly put
>>> it. He, along with Alfred Wallace, came up with a
>>> scientific theory to explain the richness of life on
>>> Earth.
>>
>> Which can not be demonstrated by the scientific method.
>
> Except that it can,

ok, demonstrate it.

[Budikka666]

Where's your positive science for creation?

Because only a fundamental hypocrite would chastise 150 years
of solid science supporting the Theory of Evolution when he
has zero science suppoting his own position.

So, where's your positive science for creation?

Budikka

[~ SäBlë ~]

"TimK" <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:467532ad$0$4689$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN." <hugh.jarse@heathens.org.uk>
> wrote in message news:1182071957.000091.292900@k79g2000hse.-
> googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 16, 9:46 pm, ZilentNoise
>> <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
>>> Since the fossil record does not show a gradual
>>> development of life from one type into another, some
>>> evolutionists theorize that the process must have happened
>>> by jerks and starts, not at a steady pace. As The World
>>> Book Encyclopedia explains: "Many biologists think new
>>> species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in
>>> genes."
>>>
>> Jabbertroll, we are all transitional forms. In fact, you're
>> living proof that evolution is not only a blind process, it
>> is bi- directional.
>
> Heh, jabbers is bi...

He must be because he was obsessed with my husband for
awhile. ;-)

--
SA.......... How did we get here?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
=================================

[Tokay Pino]

ZilentNoise wrote:
> TimK wrote:
>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
>>
>>> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
>>> there should be at least some evidence to show that one
>>> kind of life turns into another kind.
>>
>> There is, and your utter failure to comprehend it does
>> nothing to invalidate it.
>>
>> DNA--->RNA--->Proteins.
>>
>> idiot
>>
>
> Really, and this was duplicated in what lab?

DNA-RNA-Protein?

About in every biochemistry lap there is, I would think...
Pick one, call them, they will confirm it....

(Oh, I don't need to name one. You can pick one. Anyone)

Tokay

--

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept
of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all
ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the
Italians should never, ever have been let in on the
invention of the motor car.

Bill Bryson

[Zilentknig]

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
> ZilentNoise wrote:
>> TimK wrote:
>>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
>>>
>>>> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that
>>>> there should be at least some evidence to show that one
>>>> kind of life turns into another kind.
>>>
>>> There is, and your utter failure to comprehend it does
>>> nothing to invalidate it.
>>>
>>> DNA--->RNA--->Proteins.
>>>
>>> idiot
>>>
>>
>> Really, and this was duplicated in what lab?
>
> DNA-RNA-Protein?
>
> About in every biochemistry lap there is, I would think...
> Pick one, call them, they will confirm it....
>
> (Oh, I don't need to name one. You can pick one. Anyone)
>
> Tokay
>

I see, somebody threw in DNA into a vat, and watch it evolved
into RNA and then proteins, which lab should I call?

[Tokay Pino]

ZilentNoise wrote:
> Iain wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 10:17 pm, ZilentNoise
>> <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One lion may be fitter than another lion, but that does
>>> not explain how he got to be a lion.
>>
>> By a long string of previous adjustments on the same scale!
>>
>> Is it really that hard to get your head around?
>
>
> And can this demonstrated via the scientific method?
>
>>
>>

I keep waiting for the obvious reply to this, so far, it
didn't come...

So I'll do it.

How do you think the scientific method works? If you can show
that you know, I might do it....

Tokay

--

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept
of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all
ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the
Italians should never, ever have been let in on the
invention of the motor car.

Bill Bryson

[Tokay Pino]

ZilentNoise wrote:
> TimK wrote:
>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:uM%ci.563$bn6.436@trnddc03...
>>> TimK wrote:
>>>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:2%Xci.536$bn6.170@trnddc03...
>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable
>>>>> that there should be at least some evidence to show that
>>>>> one kind of life turns into another kind.
>>>> There is, and your utter failure to comprehend it does
>>>> nothing to invalidate it.
>>>>
>>>> DNA--->RNA--->Proteins.
>>>>
>>>> idiot
>>> Really, and this was duplicated in what lab?
>>
>> You fucking moron
>>
>
> Never heard of such a lab.

Call ANY biochemistry lab... DNA-RNA-Protein is so basic, it
is boring.....

That's what they do all the time... How do you think they even
GET complicated proteins? This is biochemistry. You can't just
take Hydrogen and Oxygen and get water. We are talking about
proteins here. To actually get them, you NEED at least the
RNA-protein part.

Tokay

--

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept
of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all
ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the
Italians should never, ever have been let in on the
invention of the motor car.

Bill Bryson

[Zilentnois]

pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
> On 17 jun, 00:12, ZilentNoise
> <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
>> pba...@worldonline.nl wrote:
>>
>>> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come into
>>> existence in the last 125 years?
>> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do you
>> know of any?
>
> HIV
>

HIVis a virus, viruses and retro-viruses has been around for a
long time. ...

try again

[Zilentknig]

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
> ZilentNoise wrote:
>> Iain wrote:
>>> On Jun 16, 10:17 pm, ZilentNoise
>>> <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One lion may be fitter than another lion, but that does
>>>> not explain how he got to be a lion.
>>>
>>> By a long string of previous adjustments on the same
>>> scale!
>>>
>>> Is it really that hard to get your head around?
>>
>>
>> And can this demonstrated via the scientific method?
>>
>>>
>>>
>
> I keep waiting for the obvious reply to this, so far, it
> didn't come...
>
> So I'll do it.
>

Good, most won't answer because they know I am right.

> How do you think the scientific method works? If you can
> show that you know, I might do it....
>
>

The short short version observe what happens; based on those
observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the
theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch
to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

Using Dr. Karl Popper as authority Darwinism is not a testable
scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program. Since
it is not testable, the evolutionary theory as the origin of
man is not science, according to these definitions. Not
observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only
by dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific
method. Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the
scientific method, and based on this method he finds evolution
wanting as a legitimate scientific theory. Rather, he finds it
to be, not science, but suitable for metaphysical research.

Now I know, an argument from "authority", is a logical
fallacy, however it seems that nobody want to do real science
here, and simply spout what other have said or done. By the
way scientific creationism also fails the scientific method.
As a reminder I am not a creationist.

[Tokay Pino]

ZilentNoise wrote:
> TimK wrote:
>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:TL%ci.562$bn6.290@trnddc03...
>>> TimK wrote:
>>>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:pfZci.550$bn6.470@trnddc03...
>>>>> pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come
>>>>>> into existence in the last 125 years?
>>>>> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do
>>>>> you know of any?
>>>> sigh <rolls eyes>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> have you seen any?
>>
>> Yes. You would too if you had any background in this.
>>
>
> it is extensive in biology. Now then present some evidence
> of new life form which has evolved in front of human eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria

--

Germans are flummoxed by humor, the Swiss have no concept
of fun, the Spanish think there is nothing at all
ridiculous about eating dinner at midnight, and the
Italians should never, ever have been let in on the
invention of the motor car.

Bill Bryson

[Zilentknig]

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
> ZilentNoise wrote:
>> TimK wrote:
>>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
>>> news:TL%ci.562$bn6.290@trnddc03...
>>>> TimK wrote:
>>>>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:pfZci.550$bn6.470@trnddc03...
>>>>>> pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come
>>>>>>> into existence in the last 125 years?
>>>>>> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do
>>>>>> you know of any?
>>>>> sigh <rolls eyes>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> have you seen any?
>>>
>>> Yes. You would too if you had any background in this.
>>>
>>
>> it is extensive in biology. Now then present some evidence
>> of new life form which has evolved in front of human eyes.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria
>

it is still a bacteria.. got anything new?

[Rob. O'Con]

"ZilentKnight" AKA JABRIOL aka
Ghent<ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:4%Fei.4384$lY5.631@trnddc07...
> it is still a bacteria.. got anything new?

New? Remember this one you posted in a rare moment of lucidity
Antonio L
Santana? I'm glad you know what you are and how others
precieve you.

Ghent (aka JABRIOL/Antonio L Santana) said this about
himself in:
news:1174085588.281549.270940@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
"But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living
black puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less
that your fancy carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep
well at night."

[Ips-Switch]

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.17.01.11.23.334181@com.mkbilbo...
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:17:13 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
>
>> Thus, in Harper’s magazine
>
> What's next? You gonna quote People magazine?

Just wait until he starts quoting "The Inquirer" magazine ;-)

>
> --
> Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic
> Subversion
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> "Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"

[Bill M]

Get an education. Evolutionary scientists do NOT claim that
evolution is the constant change of living things.

They have observed that change is erratic and inconsistent
caused by chance events not some careful planning or guidance.

"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:wr9di.272$%t6.267@trnddc02...
> The fossil record gives another important kind of evidence
> that belies evolution. The process of evolution is
> described as "the constant change of living things." But
> innumerable fossils are found in ancient strata that, like
> the lungfish, are identifiable with modern species.
> Imprints of leaves of oak, walnut, hickory, grape,
> magnolia, palm, and many other trees and shrubs, left on
> rocks of Mesozoic age and since, are not different from
> those leaves today. The millions of years, as estimated by
> geologists, since they first appeared have left them
> without any evolutionary change. Likewise, hundreds of
> insects left their mark in Mesozoic rocks. These imprints
> show them to have been quite similar to species of the
> same insects we have now. As the evolutionist puts it,
> "Insect evolution had been essentially completed by the
> end of the Mesozoic"-the era in which they first appeared.
>
> Can such fossil evidence honestly be claimed to support the
> theory that environmental pressures bring about a continual
> change in species and produce new ones? Or does it not
> rather give the strongest support to the principle that each
> species, once created, brings forth only its own kind? Yes,
> and it has continued to do so generation after generation
> throughout all the millenniums of time.

[hhyapster]

On Jun 19, 1:06 pm, ~ S=E4bl=EB ~ <Sable...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "D=E4rFl=E4ken" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:CIEdi.4470$%t6.1979@trnddc02...
>
> > Yeah Carol I am out to kill you, if that what you want to
> > *believe* so =
be
> > it. You will die tonight at 12:45 am.
>
> Antonio... I give you my word. It wouldn't bother me one bit
> to blow your head off with the 30:06 should you threaten me
> in person! That is after I turn the dogs on your cowardly
> criminal @$$. You've threatened us for two years now - if
> anyone is going to die it will be you, a useless human weed
> and parasite on society by your own admission.
> --
> SA..... "Jabriol wants to be loved; failing this, to be
> admired; failing this, to=
be
> feared; failing even this, to be hated and despised. Jabriol
> wants to arouse some sort of feeling in people. The soul
> shrinks from the void and wants contact at any price." ~
> Hjalmar Soderberg ~
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3-
> =D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=-
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Carol should take the e-mail to police for being
threatened to be killed. With that as an evidence, he will
be charged in court.

[invalid]

"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in
message news:_GMei.4418$lY5.2357@trnddc07... As a reminder I
am not a creationist.

So Jehovah's Witnesses no longer believe in creation jabbers?
You already said they reject evolution, so what's left? Are
they now teaching that the planet was seeded by little green
men from Mars or some other galaxy?

Cue jabbers to start babbling about kiddy porn, Hell's Angels,
crack whores........

[Ips-Switch]

"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in
message news:_GMei.4418$lY5.2357@trnddc07...
> Now I know, an argument from "authority", is a logical
> fallacy, however it seems that nobody want to do real
> science here, and simply spout what other have said or done.
> By the way scientific creationism also fails the scientific
> method. As a reminder I am not a creationist.
>

No but you are a liar since all JWs are creationists and
reject the theory of evolution as you've been doing on these
NGs for many years. You think if you can disprove life
evolved, there will be nothing else left for people to believe
but GODDIDIT!

[Zilentknig]

hhyapster@gmail.com wrote:

>> ==========================================================
>
> Carol should take the e-mail to police for being threatened
> to be killed. With that as an evidence, he will be charged
> in court.
>

Too late, I killed her two days ago. cut her throat,
suffocated her with a bag, then I burnt her body in the
microwave. Where were you?

ya missed it all, it call Carol world...

[Seppop]

ZilentKnight wrote:
> Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
>> ZilentNoise wrote:
>>> TimK wrote:
>>>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:TL%ci.562$bn6.290@trnddc03...
>>>>> TimK wrote:
>>>>>> "ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:pfZci.550$bn6.470@trnddc03...
>>>>>>> pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you meaning to say that no new species has come
>>>>>>>> into existence in the last 125 years?
>>>>>>> No, we have seen no new life form in the last 200. Do
>>>>>>> you know of any?
>>>>>> sigh <rolls eyes>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> have you seen any?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. You would too if you had any background in this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> it is extensive in biology. Now then present some evidence
>>> of new life form which has evolved in front of human eyes.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria
>>
>
>
> it is still a bacteria.. got anything new?

You *really* are a dolt, aren't you?

--
Seppo P. What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban,
Oct 1, 2005)