The Creation Museum

[ThaG]

No, your views are straight up nazi, and if I actually start going into specific things you have posted that shed light on the subject, you might actually realize the truth of my assessment. No, a nazi is not the worst you can be. The worst a person can be is a snitch or atheist.[/quote

I'm a proud atheist!

Suck it up!

In some instances funded by catholics, but the core of nazi ideology is actually the occult. You should know this, because you adhere to nazism.[/quote

You're the first person telling me that...

You are going in circles. You are claiming religion doesn't enforce birth control, yet when I show you many religions DO enforce birth control you ignore. You are placing the blame on RELIGION, yet you also say our sole purpose is to spread our genes as much as possible. If that is the case, why blame religion for doing what you yourself claim we are designed to do?



No one is distorting your words, and your statement doesn't make any sense.



I asked you a direct question not a rhetorical one, so you either answer it or you can't. If you can't answer it, you show you know nothing about the problem.



So you once again back peddle and change your story. Thanks

Wrong

Buddhism might no tell you "Have as many children as possible" but Christianity and Islam definitely do so and it is these two religions that cause the most trouble and I attack the most. There is no contradiction, it is you making up one

Can you please explain to us how imperialism and economic mishaps are tightly linked to religion?



Kill off ethnic people and people of darker skin tones.



So you're saying GREED has NOTHING to do with deforestation, pollution etc? So you're saying imperialism and capitalism have NOTHING to do with these things? ThaG what religious groups are spear heading a movement to cut down rain forests? Are people cutting down rain forests to offer quality housing at good rates, or are they cutting down rain forrests for their own benefit?

No person who:

1. understands what the consequences of his actions are (for which one needs sufficiently good education in natural sciences)

2. who doesn't think he's superior to all other species and has the right to do whatever he wants to with them (for which he needs not to be brainwashed with biblical "Rule over the world and multiply" rhetoric)

3. who doesn't think whatever damage he causes to nature is God's will and if things become really bad God will fix everything

will be involved in any deforestation activity

Don't say anything, you can't refute this because it is the truth

More twisted logic and misinterpreted facts? You didn't even tell us WHEN the ice was going to melt, so if you didn't tell us, why would anyone assume that the population would have grown from 6 to 10 billion at that time? :dead:

because people who know simple math can extrapolate birth rates well into the future and predict what the population numbers will be 50 years from now

When the ice is going to melt? - 2050 is the earliest date, that's why I said 10 billions minimum

Race doesn't determine your intelligence and ability to learn? Did you see the Oprah special about the two schools in chicago? Do you realize how poverty and racism go hand in hand?

I don't have TV set when I'm in USA, I have more important things to do than waste my time watching programs designed to brainwash dumb americans

Again, we see white/europeans spreading sickness and destruction to EVERY place they visit. And this is a COMMON factor. What I am focusing on is directly linked to science and the dna of white people. Is there something in white people that causes them to behave in this fashion?

You think it's only white/europeans?

I would think again, Chinese have done just as much damage to their country, same applies to Indians, Mayan didn't do a particularly good job with keeping their environment either

No one is distorting it. You want RELIGION to take responsibility for what you claim NATURE designed us to do.

LMAO!

The claim "Nature made us able to reproduce, we can do it so we should do it until we cause a catastrophe of such a scale that it can wipe out most of life on Earth, evolution tells us to do so" is one of the most ridiculous ones I've ever seen.

The natural thing for you is to eat as much as you can, and become so obese that you die of diabetes or heart attack in you 20s. This what your organism is designed for - storing large amounts of energy reserves in the form of fats and this is what helped our ancestors survive famines. Are you going to do it?

 

[ThaG]

No, your views are straight up nazi, and if I actually start going into specific things you have posted that shed light on the subject, you might actually realize the truth of my assessment. No, a nazi is not the worst you can be. The worst a person can be is a snitch or atheist.

I'm a proud atheist!

Suck it up!

In some instances funded by catholics, but the core of nazi ideology is actually the occult. You should know this, because you adhere to nazism.[/quote

You're the first person telling me that...

You are going in circles. You are claiming religion doesn't enforce birth control, yet when I show you many religions DO enforce birth control you ignore. You are placing the blame on RELIGION, yet you also say our sole purpose is to spread our genes as much as possible. If that is the case, why blame religion for doing what you yourself claim we are designed to do?



No one is distorting your words, and your statement doesn't make any sense.



I asked you a direct question not a rhetorical one, so you either answer it or you can't. If you can't answer it, you show you know nothing about the problem.



So you once again back peddle and change your story. Thanks

Wrong

Buddhism might no tell you "Have as many children as possible" but Christianity and Islam definitely do so and it is these two religions that cause the most trouble and I attack the most. There is no contradiction, it is you making up one

Can you please explain to us how imperialism and economic mishaps are tightly linked to religion?



Kill off ethnic people and people of darker skin tones.



So you're saying GREED has NOTHING to do with deforestation, pollution etc? So you're saying imperialism and capitalism have NOTHING to do with these things? ThaG what religious groups are spear heading a movement to cut down rain forests? Are people cutting down rain forests to offer quality housing at good rates, or are they cutting down rain forrests for their own benefit?

No person who:

1. understands what the consequences of his actions are (for which one needs sufficiently good education in natural sciences)

2. who doesn't think he's superior to all other species and has the right to do whatever he wants to with them (for which he needs not to be brainwashed with biblical "Rule over the world and multiply" rhetoric)

3. who doesn't think whatever damage he causes to nature is God's will and if things become really bad God will fix everything

will be involved in any deforestation activity

Don't say anything, you can't refute this because it is the truth

More twisted logic and misinterpreted facts? You didn't even tell us WHEN the ice was going to melt, so if you didn't tell us, why would anyone assume that the population would have grown from 6 to 10 billion at that time? :dead:

because people who know simple math can extrapolate birth rates well into the future and predict what the population numbers will be 50 years from now

When the ice is going to melt? - 2050 is the earliest date, that's why I said 10 billions minimum

Race doesn't determine your intelligence and ability to learn? Did you see the Oprah special about the two schools in chicago? Do you realize how poverty and racism go hand in hand?

I don't have TV set when I'm in USA, I have more important things to do than waste my time watching programs designed to brainwash dumb americans

Again, we see white/europeans spreading sickness and destruction to EVERY place they visit. And this is a COMMON factor. What I am focusing on is directly linked to science and the dna of white people. Is there something in white people that causes them to behave in this fashion?

You think it's only white/europeans?

I would think again, Chinese have done just as much damage to their country, same applies to Indians, Mayan didn't do a particularly good job with keeping their environment either

No one is distorting it. You want RELIGION to take responsibility for what you claim NATURE designed us to do.

LMAO!

The claim "Nature made us able to reproduce, we can do it so we should do it until we cause a catastrophe of such a scale that it can wipe out most of life on Earth, evolution tells us to do so" is one of the most ridiculous ones I've ever seen.

The natural thing for you is to eat as much as you can, and become so obese that you die of diabetes or heart attack in you 20s. This what your organism is designed for - storing large amounts of energy reserves in the form of fats and this is what helped our ancestors survive famines. Are you going to do it?

 

[ThaG]

Wow, you're obviously not as knowledgeable as you pass yourself off to be...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Punctuated_equilibrium.27s_history

^You're actually the one who looks stupid, LMAO!. I wonder what you'll come up with to save face.(?)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

morphological discontinuity = inadequacy?

ParkBoyz, in the past you have shown such a vast ignorance about mechanisms that it is hard to take you serious about anything you have to say about one of the most complex parts of the theory, concerning the speed of evolution,

 

[ParkBoyz]

Something that G is accustomed to doing, which is despicable and proves that he is a fraud.

When he gets busted out for being hopelessly wrong on an issue, he either does not address/ignores it(like in this case, when I busted his dumb ass out on the previous page), or he'll give an inadequate response, realize it later, and erase the comment(like in the case when heresy owned him in the "Deja Vu" thread). Hahahaha! G, you are a joke, maybe the biggest pseudo-intellectual on this forum, the only people that you can fool with these antics are your fellow slave-minded siccness adherents.

 

[ThaG]

Something that G is accustomed to doing, which is despicable and proves that he is a fraud.

When he gets busted out for being hopelessly wrong on an issue, he either does not address/ignores it(like in this case, when I busted his dumb ass out on the previous page), or he'll give an inadequate response, realize it later, and erase the comment(like in the case when heresy owned him in the "Deja Vu" thread). Hahahaha! G, you are a joke, maybe the biggest pseudo-intellectual on this forum, the only people that you can fool with these antics are your fellow slave-minded siccness adherents.

????????????????????

 

[ParkBoyz]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

morphological discontinuity = inadequacy?

ParkBoyz, in the past you have shown such a vast ignorance about mechanisms that it is hard to take you serious about anything you have to say about one of the most complex parts of the theory, concerning the speed of evolution,

Here he goes again with his lies and petty Ad Hominems, which is disgusting. I have ultimately come to the conclusion that G is a lying knave who doesn't know what the word discontinuity means or chooses to ignore simple word definition which causes him to fail in making a correlation between inadequate fossil record and "morphological discontinuity".. You are a text book fraud which is obvious since all you do is post links and read out of your text book, but you cannot for the life of you sustain an argument in your own terms from logical cohesion. What ever you claim I do not understand seriously lacks merit and basis, and is your only argument in every single thread, yet you never address the reasoning behind it, ever. You are a fucking fraud and I put that on all of the souls of your dead relatives.

 

[ThaG]

Read, ParkBoyz, read and educate yourself, it is not bad for your health contrary to what you think

Don't tell me you read everything in 5 minutes and typed a response....

 

[ThaG]

6. Common errors in discussion of PE

Many errors can be found in discussion of the concept of PE. G&E 1977 point out several of these.

PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977. This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.

PE is essentially and exclusively directed to questions at the level of speciation and processes affecting species. The basis of PE is the neontological theory of peripatric speciation. The criteria by which "punctuations" are recognized by Gould and Eldredge involve temporal issues and geographic issues. PE is not expected to be as useful at lower or higher levels of change.

PE is by no means either synonymous with "saltationism", nor did Gould's essay on Richard Goldschmidt "link" PE with Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" conjecture. Gould wrote an article that has caused much confusion. "Return of the hopeful monsters" sought to point out that a hatchet job had been done on some of the concepts that Richard Goldschmidt had formulated. The discussion of systemic mutations as mutations which affect rate or timing of development has caused many people to assume that Gould was somehow linking PE to this concept. A close reading of the article shows this to not be the case.

Gould and Eldredge did not specify any particular genetic mechanism for PE. PE does not require large scale mutations.

PE is not a saltational theory of evolution. The emphasis upon applying consequences of peripatric speciation to paleontology shows this critique to be unfounded. PE is no more saltational than peripatric speciation is in study of modern organisms.

 

[ParkBoyz]

Fraud..

 

[ThaG]

back up your claim

 

[ParkBoyz]

If evolution across biological kinds (known as macro-evolution) really occurred then we should find millions of indisputable transitional forms in the fossil record instead of a few disputable transitional forms that even evolutionists cannot all agree upon. And, again, the point needs to be emphasized that species cannot wait millions of years for their vital (or necessary) organs and biological systems to evolve.

In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species, which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25541.html

There are many who believe in the theory of evolution, who don't realize that you need to make a choice in what theory of evolution you are going to accept as being true. You can't believe in both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium simultaneously, since they are contradictory. Some of the "spokesmen" for evolution, such as Richard Dawkins, would like to redefine punctuated equilibrium into some sort of modified gradualism. However, the following statement is what Gould and Eldredge say about their theory:

"Punctuated equilibrium is a theory that attributes this pattern of spurt and stasis neither 1. to imperfections of the fossil record in a truly gradualistic world, nor 2. to such theories of occasional anagenetic rapidity as Simpson's important hypothesis of quantum evolution, but to speciation as a process of branching, characteristically occurring at geologically instantaneous rates - with trends then explained not as anagenetic accumulation, but as differential success by species sorting."

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html


Which simply goes to show that your little "Talk Origins" website that you so desperately rely on is full of nothing more than propaganda and double talk that simple minded drones like you are quick to eat up, as it is convenient to your predefined belief system.... I have no idea why I even entertain you..

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Which simply goes to show that your little "Talk Origins" website that you so desperately rely on is full of nothing more than propaganda and double talk that simple minded drones like you are quick to eat up, as it is convenient to your predefined belief system.... I have no idea why I even entertain you..

But you just posted links from the Conservative Voice and God & Science. lulz

 

[ParkBoyz]

But you just posted links from the Conservative Voice and God & Science. lulz

2-0 Sixx, if you have no argument please shut the fuck up, no one enjoys being taunted with baseless drive-by criticism sprung from a general lack of understanding of my point as it pertained to G(not you!)..

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Oh shit I didn't realize this was the Gathering of ParkBoyz forum! I'm sorry sir! I'll just do like a good boy and keep my mouth shut round these here parts for now on.

 

[ParkBoyz]

Oh shit I didn't realize this was the Gathering of ParkBoyz forum!.

Well now you do.. Next time just provide a rebuttal though or don't even bother addressing me. Thank you..

 

[HERESY]

I'm a proud atheist!

Suck it up!

In some instances funded by catholics, but the core of nazi ideology is actually the occult. You should know this, because you adhere to nazism.[/quote

You're the first person telling me that...




Wrong

Buddhism might no tell you "Have as many children as possible" but Christianity and Islam definitely do so and it is these two religions that cause the most trouble and I attack the most. There is no contradiction, it is you making up one




No person who:

1. understands what the consequences of his actions are (for which one needs sufficiently good education in natural sciences)

2. who doesn't think he's superior to all other species and has the right to do whatever he wants to with them (for which he needs not to be brainwashed with biblical "Rule over the world and multiply" rhetoric)

3. who doesn't think whatever damage he causes to nature is God's will and if things become really bad God will fix everything

will be involved in any deforestation activity

Don't say anything, you can't refute this because it is the truth




because people who know simple math can extrapolate birth rates well into the future and predict what the population numbers will be 50 years from now

When the ice is going to melt? - 2050 is the earliest date, that's why I said 10 billions minimum




I don't have TV set when I'm in USA, I have more important things to do than waste my time watching programs designed to brainwash dumb americans



You think it's only white/europeans?

I would think again, Chinese have done just as much damage to their country, same applies to Indians, Mayan didn't do a particularly good job with keeping their environment either




The claim "Nature made us able to reproduce, we can do it so we should do it until we cause a catastrophe of such a scale that it can wipe out most of life on Earth, evolution tells us to do so" is one of the most ridiculous ones I've ever seen.

The natural thing for you is to eat as much as you can, and become so obese that you die of diabetes or heart attack in you 20s. This what your organism is designed for - storing large amounts of energy reserves in the form of fats and this is what helped our ancestors survive famines. Are you going to do it?

I'm not going to go over this with you again. You have provided no new information. See ya!

 

[HERESY]

Oh shit I didn't realize this was the Gathering of ParkBoyz forum! I'm sorry sir! I'll just do like a good boy and keep my mouth shut round these here parts for now on.

Lead by example. Are the atheist and most science links you and your slave ThaG post unbiased/nuetral? No.

 

[ThaG]

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25541.html


http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html


Which simply goes to show that your little "Talk Origins" website that you so desperately rely on is full of nothing more than propaganda and double talk that simple minded drones like you are quick to eat up, as it is convenient to your predefined belief system.... I have no idea why I even entertain you..

ParkBoyz, everything in your quotes is full of such outright lies and gross misunderstandings of the theory of evolution that I will not even bother to respond this time...

 

[ParkBoyz]

ParkBoyz, everything in your quotes is full of such outright lies and gross misunderstandings of the theory of evolution that I will not even bother to respond this time...

In other words, "Talk Origins" has no answers this time, ok. I see you've embarrassed your self enough by being exposed as a faker who can't maintain his argument with out constant appeals and cop-outs like this(using lies and double talk to avoid being wrong). You lost along time ago as you're not intelligent, enlightened, or well-rounded enough to be a spokesperson for evolution.

The fossil record is inadequate which is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed

who told you the fossil record is inadequate and who told you the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed because of that? If it's AiG or ICR my advice is to stop reading their lies because blah blah blah

Punctuated equilibrium originated as an extension of Ernst Mayr's concept of genetic revolutions by allopatric and especially peripatric speciation. Although the workings of the theory were proposed and specifically identified by Mayr in 1954, most historians of science recognize Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's 1972 paper as the principal source of its acquiescence, and as the foundational document of a new and serious paleontological research program.[1][2] Punctuated equilibrium differed from Mayr simply in that Eldredge and Gould had placed considerably greater emphasis on stasis, whereas Mayr was generally concerned with explaining the morphological discontinuity (or "punctuational patterns") found in the fossil record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Punctuated_equilibrium.27s_history

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

morphological discontinuity = inadequacy?

ParkBoyz, in the past you have shown such a vast ignorance about mechanisms that it is hard to take you serious about anything you have to say about one of the most complex parts of the theory, concerning the speed of evolution,

^^Cop-out, lies, no answers, illiteracy..


Gradualism
2. The view that speciation proceeds by imperceptibly small, cumulative steps over long periods of time rather than by abrupt, major changes.

Morphology

1. a. The branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of organisms without consideration of function.
b. The form and structure of an organism or one of its parts: the morphology of a cell; the morphology of vertebrates.

Discontinuity

1. Lack of continuity, logical sequence, or cohesion.
2. A break or gap.

Inadequate
Not adequate to fulfill a need or meet a requirement; insufficient(as it pertains to gradualism!).

If evolution across biological kinds (known as macro-evolution) really occurred then we should find millions of indisputable transitional forms in the fossil record instead of a few disputable transitional forms that even evolutionists cannot all agree upon. And, again, the point needs to be emphasized that species cannot wait millions of years for their vital (or necessary) organs and biological systems to evolve.

In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species, which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25541.html

There are many who believe in the theory of evolution, who don't realize that you need to make a choice in what theory of evolution you are going to accept as being true. You can't believe in both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium simultaneously, since they are contradictory. Some of the "spokesmen" for evolution, such as Richard Dawkins, would like to redefine punctuated equilibrium into some sort of modified gradualism. However, the following statement is what Gould and Eldredge say about their theory:

"Punctuated equilibrium is a theory that attributes this pattern of spurt and stasis neither 1. to imperfections of the fossil record in a truly gradualistic world, nor 2. to such theories of occasional anagenetic rapidity as Simpson's important hypothesis of quantum evolution, but to speciation as a process of branching, characteristically occurring at geologically instantaneous rates - with trends then explained not as anagenetic accumulation, but as differential success by species sorting."

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html


^You have once more been exposed as a brainless troll, thank you and have a nice day..

 

[ThaG]

In other words, "Talk Origins" has no answers this time, ok. I see you've embarrassed your self enough by being exposed as a faker who can't maintain his argument with out constant appeals and cop-outs like this(using lies and double talk to avoid being wrong). You lost along time ago as you're not intelligent, enlightened, or well-rounded enough to be a spokesperson for evolution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Punctuated_equilibrium.27s_history

^^Cop-out, lies, no answers, illiteracy..

Gradualism
2. The view that speciation proceeds by imperceptibly small, cumulative steps over long periods of time rather than by abrupt, major changes.

Morphology

1. a. The branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of organisms without consideration of function.
b. The form and structure of an organism or one of its parts: the morphology of a cell; the morphology of vertebrates.

Discontinuity

1. Lack of continuity, logical sequence, or cohesion.
2. A break or gap.

Inadequate
Not adequate to fulfill a need or meet a requirement; insufficient(as it pertains to gradualism!).




http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25541.html


http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html


^You have once more been exposed as a brainless troll, thank you and have a nice day..

Please, shut the fuck up

You post a lie, it is shown to be a lie, you refuse the understand and not only restate your lie, but claim that people who showed you it's a lie lied themselves.

You can use your brain better than that.

Do you understand that even Darwin didn't claim gradualism was perfect (e.g. the rate of change was constant and changes were infinitesimally small) and he realized the rate of change varies greatly

PE was not proposed to explain the lack of transitional fossils (we have plenty of these to know evolution happened no matter what you hear from AiG, DI and ICR), it was proposed to explain why two species appear sequentially in the geological record. The answer is simple - a huge population can not evolve quickly because any new alleles that appear will be quickly diluted in the large number of individuals in the population unless there is a very strong selective pressure. Small populations in remote areas tend to evolve much faster because any new beneficial mutation that arises will be much easier to stabilize in a small population. This is called peripatric speciation and is very common, it is followed by rapid radiation and that's why you see species appear "suddenly" - because the area where they evolved was small and we can very rarely find the fossils of the transitional forms (which might not even be that distinguishable from both species to be recognized as transitional, remember, we're talking about species, not orders or families).

To give an example - imagine there's a huge human population which is mostly comprised of dumb individuals and where few smart ones are scattered across. There is little selection pressure towards smarter individuals (although this is clearly beneficiary) because dumb ones do not value being smart and being smart does not increase your reproductive success very much. The huge population will not evolve towards being smarter. Now imagine there is a small population having the same number of smart individuals but because it is small, their percentage is much higher and although the same selective pressure is available, these characteristics are much more likely to be stabilized. As a result, a smarter population will evolve much more quickly.

Gould made the mistake to define two terms - phylletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium which are easy to misunderstand as two completely different things, in fact evolution is gradual, it is just the speed of evolution that changes (periods of slow evolution followed by periods of fast evolution). There is no such as a non-evolving population though.