Posts by hooberus

11

WHAT TYPE(S) OF GRASS(ES) DID NOAH TAKE ON BOARD?

by badboy in

jw
friends

i understand that rice and sorghum are related to grass, so how many types did noah take on board?.

hooberus

Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study

BK-NOA1

John Woodmorappe. 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 298 pages.

This remarkable book is the most compete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. The author has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti-Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the biblical account, and other relevant questions.

available from http://www.creationresearch.org

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

"What the heck does it mean to "come from a fish"???"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews

"Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish,"

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

How many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?

The outspoken ones that I have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing. Many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:

(This is not to say that every one who has a darwin fish on their car is necessarily an atheist, though I suspect that a larger than normal amount of them are).

22

Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism

by hooberus in

astonishing dna complexity demolishes neo-darwinism.

paper by alex williams.

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf.

hooberus

This paper doesn't mention a single thing about androgenous retro-viruses. That is a vital part of "junk" DNA that they are supposedly proving is so active so as to negate Neo-Darwinism. Of course DNA serves a purpose, some DNA might actually be for extinct traits like you would see in the fetal stages. Regardless I don't see how this demolishes anything, the fact the writer went to so much detail explaining "junk" DNA and didn't mention androgenous retro-viruses tells me that either:
a.) He purposely left them out in order to lie to me
b.) He's ignorant of the subject
If B is the case, he has no right to even write this paper as it's a fundemental property of "junk" DNA. This is a sad proposition indeed as a best case scenario is admitting that the writer is unqualified to write on the subject he had already written about. The worst case scenario is he's purposely misleading people to draw to his conclusion.

Perhaps the paper never specifically discusses "androgenous [sic?] retro-viruses" because the (longer) principal referenced Nature "ENCODE" project paper itself didn't in its discussion of DNA. http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf
Or perhaps they to:

a.) Purposely left them out in order to lie to you
b.) Are ignorant of the subject

22

Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism

by hooberus in

astonishing dna complexity demolishes neo-darwinism.

paper by alex williams.

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf.

hooberus

Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism
Paper by Alex Williams

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf

"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, Penguin Group, New York, p. 188, 1995.

77

What are the greatest evidences that the deluge never happened?

by Newborn in

jw
friends

thanks for your help.. /newborn.

hooberus

If someone made a list of "the greatest evidences that evolution never happened" and had never spent much time in the in the professional evolutionary literature on those points, they would be given stern lectures on "speaking on subjects without proper study" by the atheists /other evolutionists here.

Yet when it comes to atheists/ evolutionists speaking on creationism and the flood . . .

77

What are the greatest evidences that the deluge never happened?

by Newborn in

jw
friends

thanks for your help.. /newborn.

hooberus

"Belief in the flood requires belief in hyper evolution:
Even granting a highly impractical number of representative pairs of various
"kinds" of animals, getting back up to the millions of current species requires
a level of evolution many thousands of times faster than required by the theory
of evolution, which Creationists reject as impossible."

You people must not read much in the way of actual creationist literature.

http://www.creationresearch.org/publications.htm

77

What are the greatest evidences that the deluge never happened?

by Newborn in

jw
friends

thanks for your help.. /newborn.

hooberus

77

What are the greatest evidences that the deluge never happened?

by Newborn in

jw
friends

thanks for your help.. /newborn.

hooberus

http://www.creationresearch.org

Surface and Subsurface Errors in Anti-Creationist Geology

John K. Reed and John Woodmorappe

CRSQ Vol 39 No 1 June 2002

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm

30

The Book Evolutionists DON'T Want You To Read.

by hooberus in

the biotic message the book evolutionistsdon't want you to know about.available from http://www.creationresearch.org.

http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm.

prefacethe preface gives background about the book and its author.

hooberus

Hooberus sees no point in wasting time on technical subjects with "such persons" as me and former posters on this board. However, he is the one that demonstrates the shallowest understanding in this debate, as he cannot even present the concepts on his own, all he does is engage in ad hominems, dodging the issue, and copy and pastes.
BTS

More precisely, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/170038/3147992/post.ashx#3147992 "I see no reason to spend any more lengthy time on technical subjects with such persons (the previous two evolutionists were responed to in detail)."