Some Evidence Against Evolution

Ah... the Lionel Hutz school of debate."We've got a lot of conjecture and hearsay, your honor. Those are kinds of evidence."

I have been taken completely out of context !!!Its a "if the shoe fits - wear it type of thing"That post/reply was meant for everyone who insinuated or outright denied that the entire reason that evolution/neo-Darwinism exists is to explain the origin of life IN PLACE of the explanations of creationism. It's like we are in the 573rd page of this debate and certain people want to suddenly say that evolution doesn't challenge the claims of creationism. What nonsense ! Then somebody brought up theistic evolution which isn't the subject. The subject is that I believe God is the Creator and the other side doesn't - ok.However you Darwinssterer are not one of these people so the post you just posted of which I am replying to was written in vain. I am convinced of your knowledge of evolution - I already told you this several times.All of the scientific evidence cited by atheistic neo-Dawrwinism is offered in the larger context that God does not exist. If anyone wants to deny this then I will ignore them for the remainder of this debate.My next post to you will be scientific evidence - a few minutes away.
Look forward to your answers, also my reply to post #81 is forth coming.

You are a moron to quickly criticize Dr.Gene ScottAs you know he has a Ph.D. from Stanford. His Ph.D. is from the university itself and not from any department which makes it the most prestigious.He is the only person in the history of Stanford to request an oral exam to get his minor in geography. This means any professor from any department could attend the exam and ask him any question. If you miss one question then you flunk. He passed.Dr.Scott's degree is a research degree. He was taught that you were not qualified to offer an opinion in any subject until you read every book ever written on the subject.His IQ is 202 and he is the only person that I know of who demands that nobody send any money to him unless it is in response to his teaching and to pay what you think it is worth. That is the criteria.
Dr.Scott is the only person in the world whose voice is heard on every square inch of the globe 24 hours a day 365 days a year all paid for by the aforementioned criteria.He lost his faith in college, but as a kid he once saw his father get up off a death bed when he was dying of rheumatic fever. With the memory of this miracle in the back of his brain he decided he had to settle the issue : Did Jesus rise from the dead or not ? For the next three and a half years he read every book on the subject ever written when at the end of that three and a half years he layed down the last book and concluded from the evidence that Jesus rose.You are a coward sitting in the comfort of anonymous land insulting a great person like Dr.Scott. You aint even qualified to lick up his spit off the ground. How typical of your kind to insult someone just because they are not of your persuasion.Comfort yourself with your standard of rational enquiry, Dr.Scott's standard is to read every book ever written on a subject THEN open ones mouth.For some reason this logidemic thing has you obviously jealous, why I don't know. You have no basic respect which serves the stereotype of your kind - common dunce giving the rest of neo-Darwinism a bad name.Shut up punk

So he takes on pretty small scale, simply things so that this is possible. It certainly isn't possible for him to have read every book on evolutionary theory much less all the books on related, relevant topics.You have reached a point of utter foolishness now and still you don't offer any "evidence against evolution".[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-12-2003]

quote:

---

As you know he has a Ph.D. from Stanford. His Ph.D. is from the university itself and not from any department which makes it the most prestigious.

---

Why is that more prestigious? Most universities have inter-disciplinary studies.

quote:

---

Comfort yourself with your standard of rational enquiry, Dr.Scott's standard is to read every book ever written on a subject THEN open ones mouth.

---

So are you saying that, in order for Dr. Scott to discuss creation, he read every single book written on the topic of evolution? And geology? And physics? And chemistry? And cosmology? And genetics?

quote:

---

Shut up punk

---

Nice.edited to add:

quote:

---

His IQ is 202 and he is the only person that I know of who demands that nobody send any money to him unless it is in response to his teaching and to pay what you think it is worth. That is the criteria.

---

Dr. Gene Scott might not "demand" people send him money (I don't know of any televangelists that do, actually), but he'll sell you one of his "recently located original bound copies of his 1953 masters thesis and 1957 doctoral dissertation" for $300 a piece. Or signed for $1,000.What I want to know is just how many bound copies did he make back in 1953 and 1957? And why would you make more than are required? I mean it's not like he knew at the time he was going to be a world famous, genius, philosophizing televangelist. Right?[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-12-2003]

Quite simply you are a ****** idiot.

Source : Richard Milton "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism"Page 192"The key factor about the evolution of marsupials is that a large number of modern marsupial animals exist which - apart from the pouch and child rearing habits - are identical with placental mammals to an extroardinary degree. This is no mere general similarity of anatomical detail, but an almost perfect duplication of distinctive species like cats, rats, wolves, moles, flying squirrels, anteaters, and others. In addition there are distinctive marsupials which exist only in Australia, such as the koala and the kangaroo.How does it come about that in widely separated environments the same tiny shrewlike ancestral mammal of 65 million years ago should evolve on strictly paralell lines to produce virtually the same range of large mammals today ? The Tasmanian marsupial wolf is a virtual carbon copy of the European timber wolf. The marsupial flying phalanger is practically identical to the placental flying squirrel, as are the marsupial jerboa and the placental jerboa. When the skulls of the two wolves are placed side by side, it would take an experienced professional zoologist to tell them apart.The question for Darwinists is : How can a mouselike creature have evolved into two identical wolflike creatures (and two identical moles,etc.) on two different continents ? Doesn't this coincidence demand not merely highly improbable random mutations, but miraculous ones ?"END QUOTEThere are 3 question marks in Milton's quote.Next item.IF you believe that ALL persons who believe the Biblical flood account also believe that the Earth is of a young age (6 to 7 thousand years old) then I want to tell you this is not true.I believe the Biblical account but the Earth is obviously of immense age. Dr. Scott teaches that there are eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. God said REplenish the Earth, not plenish.Next item.I believe God's greatest creation is the human brain, how anyone cannot deduce intelligent design from the brain is.....well forget it . My question to you is, theorize or whatever I will not inundate you with "prove that" constantly, how can a piece of meat think ?This is a grab bag of starters.I will still reply to post #81 but I wanted to get this posted.Seems there is talk of shutting this topic/debate down and I do not know why.

Willotree, We're still waiting for the scientific evidence please post it soon, you can glorify Scott later.BTW Unless Scott is around 100 years old I doubt that he as read every book relating to the subject. Also I have yet to hear the voice of Scott so I doubt that he is

So are you saying that your very learned source is saying that the same mutations occured in each case? In fact, is he saying that the genomes of the two will be some specific "distance" apart? It sounds like he is suggesting that they might be genetically closer than say the grey wolf and a jackel. Is that what he is saying? How about the grey wolf and a hyena?If he isn't saying that then he is not saying that the same "improbable" mutations occured twice is he? That contradicts his statement above. If he is saying that then his statement has a scientific flavour since we can test it with a genetic sequencing of the two genomes. (I doubt that the information is currently available) So are you saying that you sources credibility is based on how identical these skulls really are?Is he also saying that if there are similar selective environments that the ToE would NOT say that similar results may occur?It seems to be necessary to clarify what Dr. Scott is saying since it appears, without the clarification, that he may not know what he is talkinga about.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-12-2003][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-12-2003]

Why do you assume that they were made back in the 50's ? Just because they were originally produced then doesn't mean the ones being sold were.Anything sold by Dr.Scott is sold through separate tax paying corporation owned by the church. He could piggyback and steal from the government like some religious entities do but he doesn't. Dr. Scott believes in paying taxes.No insult intended but you are ignorant of the origin and the awarding of Ph.D.'s. Like I said Dr.Scott's Ph.D. is from the university itself and is the last diploma handed out at graduation.
He had to prove that his doctoral dissertation was an original contribution to knowledge and he had to prove it before any professor who wanted the proof from any department, whereas the other Ph.D.'s from any particular department were only subject to the same criteria but ONLY from their department.

I think you have misunderstood. The very top of the post you replied to says I was quoting Richard Milton and not Dr.Scott. No problem I will look for your follow-up.And Richard Milton is saying it a non-creationist. He is asking how can chance mutation by chance create these virtually similar creatures on two different continents ?

oops, sorry, Milton then. "virtually similar"? How did "almost perfect duplication" become "virtually similar" in an hour or three? And just what the heck does "virtually similar" mean anyway.And again, my question was, in regards to the mutations, is he saying that the same mutations occured? If he is talking about mutations he is talking about he genome. What is he saying about it?

You know, I do believe, Willowtree, you do not know me well enough to make these statements simply because I interfere with your hero-worship. Please do not forget that opinions and assholes are available to everyone. I have yet to figure out which one you are presenting here.In the interest of objectivity I have taken the liberty of contacting Stanford university that I may learn more about the claims made by Dr. Gene Scott. I should recieve a reply next week so I will post any response that I receive to this E-mail.If you ever get around to actually presenting any evidence that is of a scientific nature I will be pleasantly surprised.As to your postings above it is easy to be brave from a distance isn't it?[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-12-2003]

oops I should of used Milton's exact words, I thought what I said was close enough.Milton is asking, that if mutation is random and by chance then how is it that the creatures in question could evolve when they are almost perfect duplicates and do it on two different continents. Now I posted the evidence that Milton wrote so you could answer it. My position is well known - intelligent design believer.

WillowtreeHow about taking your inteeligent designer mind to this website and have a read; Not Found (404) | IT ServicesYours Truly Moron Punk