Posts by hooberus

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

"You know for a fact that when creationist speak in disdain of man "coming" from a monkey they mean chimps and spider and the like. I've had these discussions with many of your spec."

Ive never promoted, nor read that specifically from any of the major creationist organizations. Anyway as Simpson said:

"In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both)." George Gaylord Simpson (prominent evolutionist)

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

Now back to the fish thing.

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

"thats as absurd as saying we came from munkees. No one believes that."

"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded." Charles Darwin (descent of man)

"On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be a descendant of any living ape - a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility - and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." George Gaylord Simpson (prominent evolutionist)

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

"I don't believe I come from fish. I believe that both me and fish had a common ancestor in a very very distant past."

The problem with this is that according to evolutionists the "common ancestor" of humans and (modern) fish was itself a fish (albeit an ancient one). That is why they say things like:

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,"

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 . . .