Abaddon

Joined

• started 167 topics
• posted 5,219 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Abaddon

• 
  125

  The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  may you all have peace!.

  hubby and i happened to catch an episode of "nova" last night.

  fascinating stuff.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  EntirelyPossible

  Nice post!
• 
  125

  The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  may you all have peace!.

  hubby and i happened to catch an episode of "nova" last night.

  fascinating stuff.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  tec

  without any thought as to why she and her son are important to god and the rest of the dying babies worldwide are not (is god really that big a shit?), or that maybe she was lucky and other parents doing the same KILL their kids.

  I don't understand how you come to this conclusion from the story? God didn't take away her son's 'illness'. He didn't have the illness that the doctors diagnosed him with to begin with.

  She claimed some form of divine inspiration, and as told in the OP make it look like she refused medical treatment because of voices in her head/beliefs (religious beliefs are based on 'voices in our head' that we simply don't conceptualise as such).

  As she actually did seek alternative (as in different not as in herbal tea), the fact I am right saying that if she did refuse medical treatment because of voices in her head/beliefs this it would be wrong, is moot.

  Shelby

  May you all have peace! Sorry, but I've caught a fairly decent cold (or something) and was kind of "down for the count" yesterday. Rather than go back a couple/few pages, though, I'll start here, if that's okay (unless, of course, I miss something someone wants me to specifically respond to, which I will be more than happy to do). Dear Abaddon, I realize you're addressing dear tec (peace to you, both!), but I think I can probably answer your... ummmmm... questions... just a tad bit better than she (if that's okay with you both, of course). I have to warn you, though: you asked for it, so it's a bit long. Now, then:

  Tec Re. your comment about attribution; AGuest wrote those words HERSELF in the OP, and later claimed there were a verbatim quote from the programme.

  My apologies. I thought it was clear from what I posted that it was from the program. Again, I stated that I was personally surprised at what was stated. Please, by ALL means, find the program (it was on "Nova") and view it for yourself. I could not remember the name of the specific scientist/archeologist/paleontologist who made the statement, so I didn't put it in quotes. But it did indeed come from the program, from the statement made by a scientist/archeologist/paleontologist... which reference to what other scientists/archeologists/paleontologists know. There was/is no benefit in me stating that someone said something they didn't, dear Abaddon: the program is viewable by anyone and I KNOW someone here would have called me on it if I were lying. So...

  Shelby; the text:

  "... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."

  ... from your OP is not uttered in the programme, the trailers, or appears in written form anywhere other than here. You may believe this is a fair summary of the programme. You are wrong.

  It does not reach that conclusion regarding evolution, and the only doubts about human evolution are whether the 'out-of-Africa' theory that the evidence has (in the scientific consensus) supported so far may now need modification due to NEW EVIDENCE. Yah know, bones in the ground or genetics, not someone saying they hear god in their head.

  The programme does not doubt evolutionary theory in general or more specifically:

  • The descent of H. sap and chimpanzees from a common ancestor
  • That more recently H. erectus arrose in Africa, and spread by migration around some of the 'Old World'
  • That in Africa H. erectus evolved into H. sap.
  • That these H.sap migrated out of Africa, and form the largest part of our genetic inheritance today.
  • That H. neanderthal arrose in Europe/Asia, either from H. erectus or (more likely) later migration from Africa of a species intermediate between African H. erectus

  Whether there were more local regional varients like neaderthal is interesting, but does not mean "actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."

  You were being misleading (intentionally or otherwise).

  That is what I take issue with. If a student at my University did that, they would receive a Fail and have a case of minor infringement of the rules on citation and referencing noted on their file. No, this is not University, but if someone is having a discussion about science then getting their facts right is kind of a good idea.

  This isn't university, though, is it?

  Said that, but pointed out in a scientific argument it helps being precise and having your facts straight. Having a scientific argument with you is like teaching a duck algebra. It's not that you are stupid (ducks are not stupid, they are very good at being ducks, but they don't get algebra) , it's just you haven't studied enough, nor or willing to accept you may be wrong in your interpretation of scientic material.

  If you can't read French well, and make out a document say X when it says Y, and someone who speaks the language points out your mistake, do you refuse to listen? No, but science, you is a science Ninja, lol.

  Re. your comment about forms of evidence; we are talking about scientific evidence, which anything spiritual lacks. Thus me borrowing the legal term of hear-say to highlight this. Doesn't mean I am couching the rest of my argument in legal terms though, as were talking science, not law.

  Oh, now, wait. You think others should conform to "university" standards when sharing info, but you're immune from the same standard in a legal format? You can borrow a legal term in one instance, but don't need to "couch the rest of [your] argument" in legal terms? Can you spell "hypocrisy"? Do you know what that means? It means holding others to a standard you won't even hold yourself to. Do you SEE?

  Ooo... caps, lol. Miss the point why don't you. Maybe 'anecdotal' would have been better and avoid using a legal term (although one could quite easily use the term heresay in a scientific paper, as it perfectly describes spiritual evidence; those it happens to can only tell you about it, and whilst sincere they may be wrong. But you miss actually responding to the point (you are very good at this falacious technique) - there is no proof of spirital claims in the way there is of scientific ones.

  Your detailed version of events makes clear what happened; given you claim to hear god in your head, you saying you withheld medical treatment would not be surprising which is why I believed what you intially said. And it is in fact true:

  I couldn't allow it and there could be no blood in the operating room.

  Based on a voice in your head. You actions delayed treatment. Reimagine it, but your words to the medical staff were 'no blood', not 'you can give my son whatever he needs to get well, but I don't believe he has cancer and want a second opinion'. Sorry you cannot see the difference.

  In the end you got alternative treatment. And they were wrong, which they only found out when they operated.

  Shelby, the original health providers would have found out they were wrong when they operated, and done it far sooner, putting your son through less. Your delay was the cause of your son having convulsions - his temperature would not have got as high if he was operated on earlier.

  You can justify this with your voices in the head, to yourself, but no wonder the Dr tried to get a court order given your postion of "I couldn't allow it and there could be no blood in the operating room."

  And you tell it like it is a good thing...

  You seem to think a scientific opinion or medical opinion is somehow certain; how can they be when they are based on knowledge and evidnence?

  Diagnoses get changed if different symptoms (evidence) are found, or evidence found in samples, or new (even if it is old it was new to them) knowledge applied. Scientific theories get changed if new evidence is sound or knowledge applied (like genetic was applied to existing eolvutionary theory). This is how thy work and why they are different to religious 'new light' which is based upon someone claiming god talks to them in some way, directly or indirectly.

  Imagined, no. Divine, I believe so.

  Yeah, most people who hear voices in their head believe this; they have different opinions to you, oft times. Does each person who hears god in their head have a different god Shelby. I think so... but not one that exisits out of their head.

  You are only partially correct. I did not have to think as to why I/my son are important to JAH; I believed we were. Not more or less than anyone else, per se, as I have NEVER thought of myself/my household in relation to anyone else. Never have... never do.

  No, so maybe if you actually do and ponder what that means in the larger scheme of things (i.e. why Shelby's babys lives because she hears god's voice and others die), you will see the possible implications.

  Abaddon, a Slave to the Rhythm
• 
  7

  Some people go to Amsterdam to Shmoke, some go to smoke people.....

  by miseryloveselders in

  1. social
  2. current

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42508543/ns/world_news-europe/.

  alphen aan den rijn, netherlands a gunman opened fire with a machine gun at a crowded shopping mall outside amsterdam on saturday, leaving at least seven people dead and wounding 15 others, officials and witnesses said.. the attacker was among the dead after fatally shooting himself at the ridderhof mall in alphen aan den rijn, mayor bas eenhoorn said.

  the suburb is less than 15 miles (25 kilometers) southwest of amsterdam.. eenhoorn said that children were among the victims, but he could not confirm whether they were among the wounded or dead, or both.. "it's too terrible for words, a shock for us all," he said.. the gunman's identity was known and it was "all but certain" he acted alone, district attorney kitty nooy said, but investigators were not yet ready to release his name or age.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  I'm checking the news now - I read Dutch. So far the word used to describe the gun is automatic vuurwapen. if it were a handgun the'd use a different word. So, that could be a demilitarised light infantry rife. like an AR15 or AK-47, but with no rapid fire option. It could also be the rapid fire military versions of the same. It might be an SMG, but then might use a different word. I would say the later, no exact details I have read yet.

  Note the cultural difference; gun ownership in NL is vanishingly low; a US incident would likely include exact details of the gun as it would pressume interest and knowledge. In comparsion Dutch people have neither interest in or knowledge the knowledge of what an AK-47 is. Someone went round a mall shooting people with a military weapon which he should not have had, not a legally-held hunting rifle (which is what the vast majority of Dutch gun owners tend to own}.

  He shoudn't have had it; details will follow as to how he got it. But not at Wal-Marts, et. al.
• 
  10

  Rio School Shooter was raised as JW

  by skeeter1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  gunman opens fire at school in brazil, killing 12 childrenvictor r. caivano/associated presspolice guarded the perimeter of a school in rio de janeiro on thursday after a gunman opened fire, killing at least 12 people.. by alexei barrionuevopublished: april 7, 2011recommendtwitter</form>e-mailprint</form>reprintssharerio de janeiro as family members mourned their loved ones and kept vigil at hospitals for the injured, this city searched for understanding thursday after a shooting at a public school left 12 students dead and 12 others wounded.. enlarge this imagericardo moraes/reutersa woman with a photo of her niece, a student at a rio de janeiro school attacked by a gunman, waited for news on thursday.. enlarge this imagemarcelo sayao/european pressphoto agencya wounded boy was taken to a hospital after a mass shooting at a school in rio de janeiro on thursday.. brazil is no stranger to urban violence, especially the kind of violence in gang-controlled slums that have given this city one of the highest murder rates in the world.

  but the specter of the schoolhouse massacre was thought to be a mostly american affliction.. on thursday, the tasso da silveira elementary and middle school, a three-story aqua-and-yellow schoolhouse in the working-class neighborhood of realengo, on the west side of rio, joined the ranks of columbine high school in 1999 and virginia tech university in 2007, sites of other school shootings.

  for the victims families, the massacre brought those tragedies home.. we hear about terrorists abroad and we think it will never happen here, said clemilson perreira chagas, 30, whose cousin jessica perreira, 15, was killed thursday.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  JWs are just Jihadist by proxy; they expect god to do the killing for them.

  But it really is that simple; they look forward to a time where un-believers will be anihilated, just like Wahhabi (and other extreme Muslims) and many fundy Christians (ya, know, when they all go float up to the sky and we all die).

  Religion is pretty dumb, but if it is your thing, go for it prvided you are truely exercising your own freewill.

  However, religions that preach anihilation of non-believers, whether by their own or god's hand are evil.

  Problem is 'normal' Muslims will rarely condemn the Jihaddi as they should, 'normal' Christians rarely condemn the fundy nut-jobs as they should, and obviusly JWs don't admit when they are wrong, LOL. Kinda off topic though, just thinking.

  As for this guy; there are mentally ill people everywhere. Maybe his religious background was a co-factor.
• 
  11

  inactive true believers

  by jeckle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i work with a guy that was raised a witness.

  he is in his late 20's maybe 30. he was born in but never baptized.he was in the army at one point a couple of years or so; he managed to avoid action.

  he recently married his live in girlfriend(she is catholic, but he's working her to convert).his jdub mom lives with them and has before their mariage, and he is studing.. at times he has the new convert zeal.he has engaged me in biblical conversations but doesnt seem to know know how to defend his faith.he is thoroughly convinced tho and gets upset if you don't agree.he doesn't get abusive just visible shaken and dumbfounded.this is what i find odd.. #1 he can't defend it, basically he doesn't know what he believes.. #2 he's been around it that long and he is sitting on the fence, which is something he thought to accuse me of once, which is when i proceeded to let him have it with things i've seen and learned that he couldn't defend.. i dont hate the guy i get it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  LOL, my ex is one. Still all the beliefs and stupid moralisation, will infringe these as conveinient with random birthdays and Christmas celebrations some years but not others, dates guys (but gets dumped as she is a prude), and too damn idle ever to make a meeting.

  Mark you, this made it real easy for my daughters (18 and 20) to grow up free of belief, so I see her loserosity as a good thing.
• 
  62

  Why did you "BORN IN's" leave?

  by stillstuckcruz in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm sure at some point you have mentioed it somewhere on the site, perhaps several.

  but this question is i guess personal.

  for those her were born into the jdub religion, why did you leave at whatever point?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  By the age of eight I had doubts. I loved nature, and my dad bought me (adult) books about birds and the oceans, which had stuff about evolution in the. That and documentaries on TV with pythons with rudimentary limbs and Hoazins with thumbs on their wings got me to thinking.

  But you know, your parents know best, eh? And it was the only world I knew.

  By my mid-teens, I knew enough of evolution and geology to know the then-doctrine of 1,000 year creative days was impossible. I had made up my mind to 'do something' if the replacement for the old light blue Evolution book didn't make changes, and it did. Yes, I knew some stuff about evolution et. al., but not enough to know that macroevolution was a fact and that the Flood was a myth, so the change to creative days having no definitive length was enough.

  In my late teens I actually had a good time. I was a good little Dubbie, made MS, and had the old cognitive dissonance down pat. I was literal minded enough to think everyone took stuff as seriously as I did (man, why could I not have lead a double life, lol) and that I was the only one faking my field service reports.

  Fell in love with a recently reinstated woman with a baby, my parents were horrified (and in hindsight rightfully so, damn it) as I was 'meant' to take my pick of the young innocent pioneer girls (stupid stupid stupid - me, not them). I proposed to her and we got married after six months.

  Two years later our first kid, we moved out of London, things were not going well, and away from my parents and the social circle I had grew up with I grew more and more discontent. After our second kid I just could not lead someone else's life anymore, stopped attending meeting and got my own apartment.

  At the same time I started studying, and within six months of actual studying realised what a load of old shit the Witlesses stance on creation is. I also read entire shelves at the library (this is back in the early '90's – no Internet) and as my knowledge of comparative religions and theology grew my faith in an actual god faded (I went through the IF there is a god THEN he/she/it is a BASTARD and I won't worship them on moral grounds phase), plopping into nothingness as I understood evolutionary process more.

  SO, I left as I'd always had doubts about the truthfulness of the beliefs, but buried them under cog-dis and social conditioning (fear of the consequences of disbelief) until I was so unhappy I had to leave or die.
• 
  125

  The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  may you all have peace!.

  hubby and i happened to catch an episode of "nova" last night.

  fascinating stuff.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Tec

  Re. your comment about attribution; AGuest wrote those words HERSELF in the OP, and later claimed there were a verbatim quote from the programme. That is what I take issue with. If a student at my University did that, they would receive a Fail and have a case of minor infringement of the rules on citation and referencing noted on their file. No, this is not University, but if someone is having a discussion about science then getting their facts right is kind of a good idea.

  Re. your comment about forms of evidence; we are talking about scientific evidence, which anything spiritual lacks. Thus me borrowing the legal term of hear-say to highlight this. Doesn’t mean I am couching the rest of my argument in legal terms though, as were talking science, not law.

  And you providing more details of Shelly’s story is interesting, and illustrates nicely how these tales build in the telling. She makes no mention of a medical second opinion, just of voices in her head, refusing medical treatment for her son, and him recovering anyway.

  If she had said ‘if didn’t make sense to me so I asked for a second opinion’ I would have lauded her. As you have shown, her omission of vital detail makes it look like she is less than honest or more than forgetful. I just don;t buy it being a condensed version of the event as the details are far too important.

  I did catered for what you now informed me happened in my response (option 3); different set of medical professionals yes, but a second opinion is not divine intervention but sound practice in some cases.

  I understand that what is not approved of here is that Shelby believed what the 'voice of her lord' told her, over what the doctors told her. I don't know how to take issue with that though, since the doctors WERE wrong.

  Wrong. If Shelly’s re-telling of this story had contained all the details, then I wouldn’t give a hoot if it was sound research or imagined divine mumbles that made her get a second opinion and seek alternative treatment; she would have done the right thing as a parent. I may have thought 'yeah, like god told you', but as the actions taken were the same as if any responsible parent had doubts about a diagnosis, I'd not have taken her to task for it.

  What got me in the version of the story in this thread is it sounded like she refused medical treatment based on imagined divine mumbles, without any thought as to why she and her son are important to god and the rest of the dying babies worldwide are not (is god really that big a shit?), or that maybe she was lucky and other parents doing the same KILL their kids.

  And what further gets me now you kindly give ALL the details, is her omitting details to big up god - or herself. And let's face it, the more a person claims to 'hear' god or be guided by a particularly accurate interpretation of scripture, the more their faith is based on their own opinion, and becomes a form of self-idolatrous narcissism.

  LOL, yup, the most high certainly needs Shelly to be economical with the facts so people think he’s wonderful.

  Over 5,000 posts in just over a year Tammy? Are you new out or what?
• 
  19

  Skeptic/Major Physicist Validates 'Cold Fusion'

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://pesn.com/2011/04/07/9501805_rossi_cold_fusion_validated_by_swedish_skeptics_society/.

  the bone head media keep ignoring a continuing story that could change the world profoundly!

  economics, politics, environmentalism, the middle east...... everything!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  LOL, maybe the bonehead media do some research?

  Maybe the majority of the scientific comunity have thought about this skeptically, like this; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=198040?

  Look, it I had made a suitcase sized device that could generate 15x as much power as was put into it, I would stage a press event in a public park with the suitcase, a petrol generater of the required input power, and a bank of lights requiring 15x as much power.

  A bare field and a clear evidence of and output 15x that of input removes the chance of smoke and mirrors, or at least greatly reduces it.

  From the fact the patent application is divergent from the claims made elsewhere, this is suspect and likely an investment scam.

  The level of deciet in these situations is remarkable; the above link describes one where a claimed energy machine looked real because it drew power in such short bursts the needle on the metre couldn't respon quicly enough, so it LOOKED like it was making more energy than was put into it.

  Some Swedish skeptic being apparently impressed means nothing. A shit load of scientists peer reviewing it and saying, "oh my gosh, cold fusion!" means something - either that or dramatic demonstrations of its claimed ability away from smoke and mirrors, as described above.
• 
  6

  Homosexual or Transgender Caveman?

  by laverite in

  1. social
  2. current

  has anyone seen the news report from the telegraph on the 5,000 year old skeletal remains found in prague?

  the male remains were buried as a female would have been, and this brings up the question that the remains represent someone who was either homosexual or transgender.

  very interesting piece.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Mmm.... shit journalism. But then that is often synonymous with 'Telegraph'.

  For a start, he or she wasn't a caveman; pre-Bronze age is not 'caveman'.

  For a second, gender assignment of skeletal remains is not a precise art; it is just as possible the remains have been misassigned a gender as it is they were given a non-typical burial for their gender.

  For a third, they could be transgender.

  Of course, they might be right, it's not like Oscar Wilde invented being gay, is it?

  All this brilliant analysis is not mine sadly; see here; http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta/communication/gay-caveman-prague-2011.html
• 
  125

  The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  may you all have peace!.

  hubby and i happened to catch an episode of "nova" last night.

  fascinating stuff.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Shelly:

  It wasn't, dear Abaddon (peace to you and welcome back!). It was not about evolution at all. It was about [changing] "facts"... and the associated hypocrisy.

  Yes, that is like saying in a statement where you cast doubt on a the Bible's accuracy you are not attacking its version of events.

  You also say "... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."

  No. I did NOT say that. I QUOTED that from the article... and said that I was SURPRISED to even read that

  Get your facts straight or learn how to attribute correctly; from your first post:

  Hubby and I happened to catch an episode of "Nova" last night. Fascinating stuff. Seems there's a bit of a threat to the "concrete" theories of evolution, man's origination in Africa, and hominid species. What was most interesting is several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution. That was surprising.

  The words in question are NOT given as a quote. They are your summary of a programme, not verbatum expressions of other people's opinion. BIG difference, especially given your proven inability/disinclination to understand scientific argument. I don;t think you are being intentionally deceptive here, I just think you have indistinct recall and tend to regards your (poor, ill-informed) summary of a programme as the objective factual content of the programme even when the two are different

  No. You and others addressed the difference between scientific evidence and spiritual evidence (based on faith).

  There is no such thing a spiritual evidence; there is only spiritual hear-say. You have no idea what 'evidence' is, in any meaningful context. To you, you THINKING something is evidence.

  The ISSUE is one camp decrying the changes in statements of "fact" of another, while they themselves change "fact."

  This was explained to your dear, you either don't understand or deliberately ignored it.

  Religious theory (as regarding what god wants) has no facts or evidence to support if. Thus when it changes, it is for reasons other than facts or evidence.

  Scientific theory is based on facts and evidence. New facts and evidence can be found, requiring theories to change.

  Two different things. It's simple, and I don't think you're so stupid that you cannot understand it, which leaves option 'b'..

  One example would be my son's grave illness in his youth. The doctors said, "Ma'am, it IS either this... or this... and THIS is what we MUST do." They based that on the "evidence" (i.e., multitude of tests, blood work, GI series, ultrasound, CT scan, etc). NO ONE said, "We really don't KNOW." For myself, I HEARD... as they were telling me... that they were in error... that it was NOT what they were diagnosing... not even close... and so did not let them do the particularly surgery they intended to do. I HEARD that they would get a court order (and they did), but not to worry because they weren't going to be allowed to do their surgery. I HEARD... NOT to worry... but to be patient and my son would be fully taken care of and fine. And that is exactly what occurred.

  Yes dear, I'm sure this is your correct recollection of the events. See above for why this may be a problem; if you can't remember a thread's begining when it is there to check, lord knows what your recall years later is like. What we shall never know is:

  1. Whether you had conducted a thorough reading of all relevent medical literature and had a sound basis for your misgivings (as if!)
  2. How much sicker and nearer death he may have been because of your refusal to allow treatment before a recovery
  3. Whether the medical professionals would have realised what you portray as an error and administered the right therapy and your son would have recovered, without you making him into an Isaac for your beliefs
  4. How often parents with no medical understanding refuse their child treatment because of their beliefs and that child dies unnecessarily.

  Maybe your son got lucky and lived DESPITE you? Maybe 80% of the time when a parent does what you did, the kid DIES? Maybe god had NOTHING to do with it but your EGO did? Just because you were in the lucky 20% who don't kill their kid you think god was with you; and the other 80% Shelly?

  As far as I can see you are so convinced the Universe revolves around you and your beliefs you are conceited enough to believe god loves you enough to save your son, but apparently not enough to save the millions of other parents children who die young. Are you that special? If you don't realise this is what your beiefs imply then, well, maybe my above observation about your intelligence is in error. I can't believe you tell a story about you gambling with your child's life due to some sort of 'voice in your head' like it is a good thing. What hubris.

  "There is NO EVIDENCE that directly links human evolution. None."

  This is true. There is only evidence that SUGGESTS (to some, reasonably), human evolution.

  You have no idea what evidence is Shelly, as previously shown. The evidence for human evolution is just as good as that for horse, duck or donkey evolution. I'd LOVE for you to disprove that fact; but you don't know enough about evolution to either form an informed opinion let alone refute anothers argument.

  It would be like me claiming x painting was not by Rembrant but by the school of Rembrant based not on one moment of scholarly study or research, but just some stuff I had read online and seen on TV that most experts disagreed with. An opinion not worth a damn, as it is not an informed one.

  But go on, you make the claim; please show through phenetic, phylogenic, evolutionary taxonomic or paleontologic differentiation why the evidence for the evolution of H.sapiens is not as good as for Anas platyrhyncho, Equus africanus asinus or Equus ferus caballus.

  "In the same vein, there IS evidence of a fairly global, if not fully global flood."

  This, too, is true. At least, according to some archeologists...

  Again, you don't know what evidence is. And yes some so-called archaeologists think that, just like some think aliens built the pyramids, just like some parents refuse their chld medical treatment and as a result that child dies, because they are neither compotent as doctors or parents.

  But that sort of so-called archaeologist is not the sort the majority of archaeologists agree with, because they have unsound methods and cannot prove their arguments to the expected standard. If archaeologists were people to which you you could lend money, the flood-supporting ones would be the ones whose financial claims regarding their ability to repay were unsound and would most likely default. Yeah, good idea, put your money on them. And all so silly, as you can believe in any god you like AND evolution, and in a way, to think that god could not use evolution to create man is limiting the power of god - you blasphemer you. And of course, no response to my point that you talk peace and give none. Typical. You take others to task but you, you're Teflon baby