Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Creation Vs. Evolution - Item 11

0 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Budikka666

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 6:23:10 PM8/26/09
to
Item 1: http://tinyurl.com/mnkb94
Item 2: http://tinyurl.com/n9dcfh
Item 3: http://tinyurl.com/kt2exk
Item 4: http://tinyurl.com/mfztxy
Item 5: http://tinyurl.com/n596r7
Item 6: http://tinyurl.com/ncree3
Item 7: http://tinyurl.com/nqufcj
Item 8: http://tinyurl.com/p7vu8u
Item 9: http://tinyurl.com/lxjw29
Item 10: http://tinyurl.com/muapjy

Item 11:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/08/post-39.html

The picture shows the Australian blotch-tailed earless dragon. Look
how perfectly camouflaged it is - apart from that give-away tail, of
course. But other than that, it fits its surroundings perfectly and
would be very hard to spot as long as it stays still.

Creationists explain this as some god (for whom they've never provided
any scientific or objective evidence) designing (for which they've
never provided any scientific or objective evidence) the little dragon
to protect it from predators.

They claim it couldn't possibly have evolved that way. Yet they also
claim that two lizards on an ark (for which they've never provided any
scientific or objective evidence) survived a flood (for which they've
never provided any scientific or objective evidence) and "changed"
into the five thousand species of lizard we see today (for which
they've never provided any scientific or objective evidence). This
includes the giant Komodo dragon and the tiny lizards, the spiky ones
and the smooth ones, the legless ones and the legged ones, the pale
ones and the dark ones, the camouflaged ones and the non-camouflaged
ones.

The Theory of Evolution explains all of this effortlessly.

What the non-existent "theory of creation" fails to explain is this:
Why would a god need to camouflage creatures in a perfect world?

The camouflage is clearly to protect them from predators as
creationists admit. Why did this god put predators there to prey on
other organisms - and then make it hard for the predator to find the
other organisms?

If the organisms developed this camouflage after the ark, what is the
explanation for this?

Where is the science showing exactly how two lizards can contain
enough preexisting genetic information to develop into five thousand
very different lizards? if the creatiosnits are correct, it ought to
be the easiest science project int he world to prove this. School
kids ought to be able to do it.

Why *would* the genome contain all this information when it was
designed for a perfect world which the designer saw was good? Where's
the science supporting this claim?

If the genome can contain that much information, why can't it contain
enough information for the entire evolution of organisms from start to
finish?

Creationism has no useful intelligent explanations and no science.

When put up against the Theory of Evolution, it fails dismally,
utterly and repeatedly, as every creationist on Usenet will now prove
as they make any and every and any pathetic excuse they can think of
rather than directly, and unambiguously, intelligently and honestly
provide a supported answer to these questions.

You always see creationists running away and avoiding these issues.
You *never* see evolutionists doing that. Why is that?

Creationists cannot offer a supported objective explanation for this
phenonmenon. Nor can they explain how two lizards could "not evolve"
into five thousand.

Once again, when compared with evolution, creation fails.

Budikka

Andrew

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 6:40:25 PM8/26/09
to
Did you draft this when you used to be a man named, Ian Wood?

"Ian Wood" <wood...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2dfe98fe-f084-4d86...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...


Christopher A. Lee

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 8:31:17 PM8/26/09
to
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:40:25 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>Did you draft this when you used to be a man named, Ian Wood?
>
>"Ian Wood" <wood...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2dfe98fe-f084-4d86...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

I have to wonder what difference it makes to you. Even if true he or
she is still the same person inside.

And it makes no difference whatsoever to the strength of his or her
argument of explanation.

I know a few people who did that, and while I don't really understand
it they're still friends. In fact two former married couples now live
together as lesbian couples.

It makes no difference to me because I didn't have a sexual interest
in them either before or after.

Do you? Is that why you're making such a fuss?

Is it any of your business? No

Is it any of my business? No.

Are they nice, honest, decent people? Yes.

And that's what counts.

A Nony Mouse

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 10:09:26 PM8/26/09
to
In article <z6mdnX--HuJFJAjX...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

Whether or not, it brings up several issues for which creationists have
no satisfactory answers, only "goddidit".

Budikka

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 4:38:16 AM8/27/09
to
Unmet challenge #1
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.

Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.

Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.

Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.

Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.

Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.

Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary

Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.

Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.

Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
Chicken Pastor Dave

Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.

Case closed. End of story.

Budikka

0 new messages