GOD

[IrishEyes]

If memory serves, and I am so tired of having to be the one to backtrack thru posts to force others here to quit changing what they say, you stated that you ahd already posted the formula elsewhere here. You said I was just to lazy to find it.

 

Not my style, Freethinker.

 

No, I didn't post my husband's math stuff yet. Again, I will try, but until then I will remain wrong for bringing it up without having it to post. My mistake. How many times will you insist on using it as a basis for your tirades?

[IrishEyes]

To Freethinker:

Do you not recall reading the list of quotes from different respected evolutionists that I have posted at least twice in this forum? Part of the problem may be that both were not posted in this thread, but in Evolution. If that's the case, I understand. However, I HAVE posted quotes from evolutionists that state that there is no fossil proof for evolution. These are peer-reviewed scientists stating that they choose to have faith in the theory of evolution because the alternative (creation, and God) is unthinkable to them.

 

I also referenced the fact that the 'geologic column' does not exist in a 'complete' form anywhere on this earth. Different parts from different places in the world have been theoretically put together in a way as to suggest evolution. However, there is no complete intact 'geologic column' that scientists often refer to as proof of evolution. Yes, i am aware that it is an abstract idea. That is exactly my point. it is abstract, and is not evident anywhere as complete, but only in theory. Explain how this washes with you demanding proof and facts for everything? there is no proof that the abstract way in which scientists claim the geologic column theoretcially exists is factual.

 

There are valid cases where different fossils have been found together that are not possible according to evolution. Again, i will re-post a few specific cases of which I am familiar:

The Paluxey area in Texas, in which dinosaur and human prints were found together.

The Guadelupe woman, found in rock supposedly 25 million years old, but human haven't been around that long, according to evolution.

The Moab, Utah area produced skeletons found in Cretaceous rock, supposedly 100 million years old.

 

Yes, I've read the 'scientific' refutes of Paluxey. And i've heard many possible explanations for the Moab finds. But very little is said about Guadelupe woman. Any ideas? I'm sure you have them already.

[IrishEyes]

If you consider my insistance for valid evidence and consistancy of your assertions to be a personal attack, perhaps you should do some internal review.

 

IF you could stick with refuting claims instead of resorting to personal attacks involving your patronizing and condescending attitude, the statement would not have been necessary.

 

As for the remainder of your post, you have basically again shown your retort to be filled with the tapdance i have come to adore from you! You continually take half-quotes, misquotes, and your own intentional MISunderstanding of statements that i make and try to string them together to reveal supposed lies made by me. Just because I do not resort to the same tricks with your words does not mean that your outright distortions and 'logical' conclusions of my words are valid.

[IrishEyes]

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by: rileyj

"The reality is they ARE examples of speciation"

 

 

 

name one

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Fruit Flies

 

Your fruit fly example is so typical of the lengths that evolutionists will go to in order to validate evolution.

 

In the fruit fly experiment, they started with fruit flies and ended with fruit flies. Just because scientists created horribly mutated fruit flies, this does not prove evolution. Just as predicted by creationists, scientists proved variations and degradations of existing genetic information, but were unable to produce new information or genetic advances. Also, all of the variations that resulted from the scientifically imposed mutations were well within the genetic limits predicted by Creationists.

[IrishEyes]

Ok, reading again, I misunderstood the original question posed by rileyj. Freethinker says "The reality is they ARE examples of speciation" and rileyj requests "name one" to which FreeT replies "fruit flies". My original response was based on substituting evolution for speciation. My mistake, but my refutation of the fruit fly example still stands.

 

Speciation is defined as "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. In individual cases, it involves the splitting of a single evolutionary lineage into two or more genetically independent ones."

 

Keep in mind that there are many different definitions of 'species', and only of one of them, the biologic definition, defines a species by its ability to reproduce. The problem with this definition is that it allows 'speciation' between two specimens that are not always sexually oriented (asexual populations, such as some plants).

 

BTW, I read your website reference for your proofs of speciation. Did you actually READ that site? The author of the site states in the opening paragraph I have divided this FAQ into several sections. Part 2 discusses several definitions of what a species is. Part 3 explains the context in which observations of speciation are made. Part 4 looks at the question, "How can we tell when a speciation event has occurred?" Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation. Part 6 is a list of references.

That is your own reference. Yes, it is a comprehensive list of 'speciation events and experiments', and the reasons for that are also explained by the site's author. I'm surprised that you used this reference as your 'proof', as virtually every single instance that is cited is also in some way refuted.

[geko]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

Quoted by sanctus...

 

Essentially it is impossible to define the I, one can just say what it isn't:

 

 

 

is it your body? No, because if you lose many parts of it you are still there and because in seven years you got a completely new body (all the cels changed)

 

is it your beliefs, your religion yxour name?No, because you can change them but the I stays the same

 

If you observe yourself then it is the I that observe the ME, that means the ME is the way the I sees oneself. If you observe yourself then forexample you don't feel any more fear, you just keep calm and see the fear coming like black cloud over the ME.

 

 

 

But what this I is one can't say, but everybody knows: if you question yourself then it is the I questioning the ME.

 

 

 

Seriously, is the "I" comparable to the soul?

 

 

 

I new that was coming.

 

It is "the Person"

 

The person questions itself.

 

There's no need to create two potential characters. Neither does the statement 'I question myself' imply; the ambiguity lies in the language and not the idea.

 

p.s. im pretty sure there's an example of speciation (due to migration i think) in the first chapter or two of the Origin with the birds (cant remember the name of them off-hand).

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

If you consider my insistance for valid evidence and consistancy of your assertions to be a personal attack, perhaps you should do some internal review.

 

IF you could stick with refuting claims

 

There is nothing about a "claim" to refute until some form of proof is given for evaluation of the claim. Meanwhile I do the only thing one can do when responding to an unsupported claim, challenge it.

 

This takes us to one of the core problems. Too many poster follow your stated process, just making "claims". Oh ya, there are lots of "claims" thrown around here. I keep seeing all these claims of being able to prove god. But when I challenge the "claim" all I get back is obfuscation. Like you original claim to this definitive mathematical proof for god. One you had said you had already posted elswhere.

 

Now the FACT that if ANYONE had EVER developed a LEGITIMATE valid formula to prove god, it would be known around the world virtually instantaneoulsy doesn;t seem to deter you. OK< let's not let logic interfer with your claims. But I actually bothered to ask to get PROOF of it.. My fool....

 

So what was the last squirm you used to wiggle your way out of standing behind your CLAIM? Oh ya, it's too complicated for you to cut and paste!

 

As for the remainder of your post, you have basically again shown your retort to be filled with the tapdance

 

Ya, like when I posted an entire list of PROOF for Speciation, after you claimed none exists, that you have yet to refute even the first one.

 

Or this incredible addition of your husband's.

 

Ya we see who's actually supplying FACTS and who is tap dancing here.

[IrishEyes]

Like you original claim to this definitive mathematical proof for god. One you had said you had already posted elswhere.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Where did I say that i had already posted it elsewhere? STOP THE LIES!!

[Freethinker]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Originally posted by: rileyj

 

"The reality is they ARE examples of speciation"

 

name one

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Fruit Flies

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Your fruit fly example is so typical of the lengths that evolutionists will go to in order to validate evolution.

 

In the fruit fly experiment, they started with fruit flies and ended with fruit flies.

 

SEE! I KNEW it! I stopped you from using this garbage the first time by including the defination of speciation. It stopped you from mis-representing what Speciation IS. So what now? I have to spend MY time digging the old quote up from you where you acknowledge the meaning of Speciation so you won't pull this garbage? You hope we all forget what YOU SAID before.

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyesThe process of one species changing to another has never been proven.

Originally posted by: IrishEyesis called "Speciation"- "the process of biological species formation" WWWebster The basic test of speciation is whether there can be succcesfuly progeny. Can the two specimines procreate? Again, semantics. If I had said 'speciation' , the reply would have been "well, which is it, speciation or evolution?" I know what speciation is.

 

Ya, OK. YOu CLAIM (again another CLAIM) to KNOW what Speciation IS. Yet here you act like you don't!

 

Which is the lie?

 

Why can't you stay consistant from day to day?

 

Why do you feel it is OK to change your story and hope others forget?

 

BBS's give a written record. You are forced to live up to your words. Even if they were yesterday. But then you are a Christain and as we have seen before, and I stated before, that is a problem for you.

 

The last time, When I forced you in front to acknowledge what Speciation actually was, you stopped pretending to be able to refute it, and blamed being busy with your kids to cover for your failure to refute even one of the extensive list I gave.

 

So now you hope all there are are idiots around here, that will forget your acceptance of the meaning of speciation last time. And that you can pretend it means something else this time. And your failure to refute the list of FACTUAL examples of Speciation.

 

It's incredible how much time I have to spend researching what YOU SAID BEFORE just so I can make a FACTUAL post.

 

But you are a Christian, so I am used to it.

[Freethinker]

Oh, this one is really too much!

Originally posted by: IrishEyesKeep in mind that there are many different definitions of 'species', and only of one of them, the biologic definition, defines a species by its ability to reproduce. The problem with this definition is that it...

 

Now let me get this straight, Speciation, a BIOLOGICAL process, is incorrectly defined if we use the "biologic definition"!

 

I mean just how absurd of assertions do you think we will sucker for?

 

I mean, really! Your actually trying to say that BIOLOGY can't provide the most accurate biologic definition of a BIOLOGICAL process!

 

Do you read what you write before you press Reply...?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Like you original claim to this definitive mathematical proof for god. One you had said you had already posted elswhere.

 

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Where did I say that i had already posted it elsewhere? STOP THE LIES!!

 

OK. here again we see the difference between a Christian and an Atheist/ Freethinker. While being forced to go back thru old posts to find irisheyes earlier statements to stop her from changing her claims all the time, I did run across the original post RE the revolutionary amth formula. And you did not claim to ahve already posted it. I did make a mistake in that claim. You had claimed to have posted PROOFS, which you have yet to show the location of or repost, but you did not claim to have already posted the formula.

 

See how that works? When an Atheist/ Freethinker is shown an error in their thinking, they accept fault, admit it and move on.

 

But this thread continues to be nothing more than Christians desperately trying to stop from admitting they are wrong.

[Freethinker]

Meanwhile, we see that once more, this formula is just another empty CLAIM...

[IrishEyes]

Now let me get this straight, Speciation, a BIOLOGICAL process, is incorrectly defined if we use the "biologic definition"!

 

I mean just how absurd of assertions do you think we will sucker for?

 

I mean, really! Your actually trying to say that BIOLOGY can't provide the most accurate biologic definition of a BIOLOGICAL process!

 

Do you read what you write before you press Reply...?

 

A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.

 

The above is an actual quote taken from the site that YOU referenced. So yes, I believe my assertions are still valid. Funny though, when I actually took the time to check your site, then referenced where your own examples were thought to be incorrect according to your very own source, you still try to claim that I haven't refuted your claims of speciation. If you are allowed to cut, edit, and paste, without actually even reading your site to see what it says, then why should I be required to refute every single example when your site already does it for me? Get with it, man!

[IrishEyes]

BBS's give a written record.

 

What is a BBS?

[IrishEyes]

SEE! I KNEW it! I stopped you from using this garbage the first time by including the defination of speciation. It stopped you from mis-representing what Speciation IS. So what now? I have to spend MY time digging the old quote up from you where you acknowledge the meaning of Speciation so you won't pull this garbage? You hope we all forget what YOU SAID before.

 

And your definition was : "Speciation"- "the process of biological species formation" WWWebster The basic test of speciation is whether there can be succcesfuly progeny. Can the two specimines procreate?

 

However, as indicated by your own referenced website, this is not an airtight indicator of speciation. "

 

 

taken from "Observed Instances of Speciation" by Joseph Boxhorn

 

...Another reason why using the BSC to delimit species is impractical is that breeding experiments can often be inconclusive. Interbreeding in nature can be heavily influenced by variable and unstable environmental factors. ...In practice, even strong adherents of the BSC use phenetic similarities and discontinuities for delimiting species. If the organisms are phenotypically similar, they are considered conspecific until a reproductive barrier is demonstrated. ... Another criticism of the BSC comes from the cladistic school of taxonomy (e.g. Donoghue 1985). The cladists argue that sexual compatibility is a primitive trait. Organisms that are no longer closely related may have retained the ability for genetic recombination with each other through sex. This is not a derived characteristic. Because of this it is invalid for defining monophyletic taxa.

 

So explain which is the garbage: your original explanation of the definition (which you knew was questionable at best), your smokescreen (your continued complaints about having to prove what I've said, when you are the one so determined to get proof of things), or your referenced website.

 

Come on, say the website...pretty please...

[IrishEyes]

By Freethinker...

OK. here again we see the difference between a Christian and an Atheist/ Freethinker. While being forced to go back thru old posts to find irisheyes earlier statements to stop her from changing her claims all the time, I did run across the original post RE the revolutionary amth formula. And you did not claim to ahve already posted it. I did make a mistake in that claim. You had claimed to have posted PROOFS, which you have yet to show the location of or repost, but you did not claim to have already posted the formula.

 

See how that works? When an Atheist/ Freethinker is shown an error in their thinking, they accept fault, admit it and move on.

 

But this thread continues to be nothing more than Christians desperately trying to stop from admitting they are wrong.

 

Did you even read the second post, the one after the initial 'fruit fly refute'? Did you read...

 

 

By IrishEyes...

Ok, reading again, I misunderstood the original question posed by rileyj. Freethinker says "The reality is they ARE examples of speciation" and rileyj requests "name one" to which FreeT replies "fruit flies". My original response was based on substituting evolution for speciation. My mistake, but my refutation of the fruit fly example still stands.

 

This was posted before your tirade, so i'm sure you read it. So why did you repeatedly infer that i was wrong, when I had already admitted my mistake? Self-gratification? Ego? Oh no, it must be that famous atheistic altruism again, huh? It was benefitting everyone else, but not YOU, if you tried to make me look stupid, right? Even though I had already readily admitted my mistake publicly, even though it would have been just as easy for me to 'edit' out that entire post?

 

How exactly is this not accepting fault and moving on? I have repeatedly admitted when I made mistakes. What I will not admit to is that your outright lies have any merit. YOU are the one that continually tries to twist words and meanings to benefit you.

 

The items that i consider proof have been reposted. While checking those posts of mine, did you also find where I called you "lazy"? If so, I'd LOVE to see that one. Your ship is sinking fast, you know.

[IrishEyes]

by geko...

I new that was coming.

 

It is "the Person"

 

The person questions itself.

 

There's no need to create two potential characters. Neither does the statement 'I question myself' imply; the ambiguity lies in the language and not the idea.

 

Ok, geko, you got me. i still don't quite get what sanctus means, with the 'I' and the 'me', and your explanation didn't help clarify things for me (my fault, not yours!).

 

The 'I' mentioned by sanctus is 'the person'? As in self-examination? I understand the 'I question myself' sentence, and the idea behind it. Is that what sanctus means? Philosophy 101 stuff, right?