Sad times for Evolutionists

[Amazing Answers]

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.

Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.

Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

[Oko tillo]

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

While we're waiting, here's a highly ... novel ... modification of gill anatomy.
From "Some Assembly Required", by Neil Shubin, discoverer of Tiktaalik.

Video of this in action at the bottom. Do not miss it. And watch really really really
fast.

"Highly specialized salamanders don't just stick their tongue out. Their
tongue shoots out of the mouth like a bullet tethered to a string. If that
is not strange enough, the projectile that the salamander shoots is the
small bones of its gill apparatus that lie attached to a sticky pad. They
literally propel parts of their gills up to half a body length in the blink
of an eye. Then, just as remarkably, the tongue snaps back into the mouth
just as fast as it was ejected. [...]

Also, in most salamander species, gill bones lie fixed on either the side of
the head to serve as a base for the gill filaments. Salamanders with
projectile tongues do things differently. The gill bones are freed from the
skull and are attached to the tongue to become the projectile that gets shot
like a bullet. To conjure an image of salamander tongue projection, imagine
shooting a watermelon seed by squeezing it between your thumb and
forefinger. The seed is slippery and tapered. When you squeeze your
fingertips on it, the seed shoots out quickly and far. The same is true for
salamander tongues. Elaborate muscles serve as the squeezers, and the bony
rods of the gill apparatus become the lubricated and tapered surfaces. When
the muscles contract, off the bones go, much like the watermelon seed. In
projectile tongues, two gill bones are expanded to look like a tuning fork
with the tines facing the tail end. These long rods are tapered and
lubricated, much like the watermelon seed. Wrapped around these rods are
constrictor muscles that run along their length. When these muscles fire,
they squeeze the rods and shoot them out of the mouth.

The end result is that the tongue pad and the gill bones shoot to their
target. [...] [to return the tongue to the body the] solution is clever. In
all salamanders, the abdomen is swathed in muscles that extend from the hip
all the way to the gills. These muscles usually work to support the body. In
the species with the most projectile of tongues, fibers of the two sets of
muscles merge, making a single muscle that runs from the pelvis to the
specialized gill bones. Imagine a giant spring: when the gill bones are shot
out, the muscular strap stretches to recoil the apparatus".

See it in action:

Oko

[Don Martin]

On Wed, 13 May 2020 14:34:45 -0700 (PDT), Oko tillo

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

While we're waiting, here's a highly ... novel ... modification of gill anatomy.
From "Some Assembly Required", by Neil Shubin, discoverer of Tiktaalik.
Video of this in action at the bottom. Do not miss it. And watch really really really
fast.
"Highly specialized salamanders don't just stick their tongue out. Their
tongue shoots out of the mouth like a bullet tethered to a string. If that
is not strange enough, the projectile that the salamander shoots is the
small bones of its gill apparatus that lie attached to a sticky pad. They
literally propel parts of their gills up to half a body length in the blink
of an eye. Then, just as remarkably, the tongue snaps back into the mouth
just as fast as it was ejected. [...]
Also, in most salamander species, gill bones lie fixed on either the side of
the head to serve as a base for the gill filaments. Salamanders with
projectile tongues do things differently. The gill bones are freed from the
skull and are attached to the tongue to become the projectile that gets shot
like a bullet. To conjure an image of salamander tongue projection, imagine
shooting a watermelon seed by squeezing it between your thumb and
forefinger. The seed is slippery and tapered. When you squeeze your
fingertips on it, the seed shoots out quickly and far. The same is true for
salamander tongues. Elaborate muscles serve as the squeezers, and the bony
rods of the gill apparatus become the lubricated and tapered surfaces. When
the muscles contract, off the bones go, much like the watermelon seed. In
projectile tongues, two gill bones are expanded to look like a tuning fork
with the tines facing the tail end. These long rods are tapered and
lubricated, much like the watermelon seed. Wrapped around these rods are
constrictor muscles that run along their length. When these muscles fire,
they squeeze the rods and shoot them out of the mouth.
The end result is that the tongue pad and the gill bones shoot to their
target. [...] [to return the tongue to the body the] solution is clever. In
all salamanders, the abdomen is swathed in muscles that extend from the hip
all the way to the gills. These muscles usually work to support the body. In
the species with the most projectile of tongues, fibers of the two sets of
muscles merge, making a single muscle that runs from the pelvis to the
specialized gill bones. Imagine a giant spring: when the gill bones are shot
out, the muscular strap stretches to recoil the apparatus".
http://youtu.be/VzOGqNquM7Q

Impressive! I would like to see the same experiment in super slo-mo:
this is literally too fast to comprehend.

[Oko tillo]

Post by Don Martin
On Wed, 13 May 2020 14:34:45 -0700 (PDT), Oko tillo

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

While we're waiting, here's a highly ... novel ... modification of gill anatomy.
From "Some Assembly Required", by Neil Shubin, discoverer of Tiktaalik.
Video of this in action at the bottom. Do not miss it. And watch really really really
fast.
"Highly specialized salamanders don't just stick their tongue out. Their
tongue shoots out of the mouth like a bullet tethered to a string. If that
is not strange enough, the projectile that the salamander shoots is the
small bones of its gill apparatus that lie attached to a sticky pad. They
literally propel parts of their gills up to half a body length in the blink
of an eye. Then, just as remarkably, the tongue snaps back into the mouth
just as fast as it was ejected. [...]
Also, in most salamander species, gill bones lie fixed on either the side of
the head to serve as a base for the gill filaments. Salamanders with
projectile tongues do things differently. The gill bones are freed from the
skull and are attached to the tongue to become the projectile that gets shot
like a bullet. To conjure an image of salamander tongue projection, imagine
shooting a watermelon seed by squeezing it between your thumb and
forefinger. The seed is slippery and tapered. When you squeeze your
fingertips on it, the seed shoots out quickly and far. The same is true for
salamander tongues. Elaborate muscles serve as the squeezers, and the bony
rods of the gill apparatus become the lubricated and tapered surfaces. When
the muscles contract, off the bones go, much like the watermelon seed. In
projectile tongues, two gill bones are expanded to look like a tuning fork
with the tines facing the tail end. These long rods are tapered and
lubricated, much like the watermelon seed. Wrapped around these rods are
constrictor muscles that run along their length. When these muscles fire,
they squeeze the rods and shoot them out of the mouth.
The end result is that the tongue pad and the gill bones shoot to their
target. [...] [to return the tongue to the body the] solution is clever. In
all salamanders, the abdomen is swathed in muscles that extend from the hip
all the way to the gills. These muscles usually work to support the body. In
the species with the most projectile of tongues, fibers of the two sets of
muscles merge, making a single muscle that runs from the pelvis to the
specialized gill bones. Imagine a giant spring: when the gill bones are shot
out, the muscular strap stretches to recoil the apparatus".
http://youtu.be/VzOGqNquM7Q

==

Post by Don Martin
this is literally too fast to comprehend.

I know, I know. Amazing

Oko

Post by Don Martin
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution...

So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com
- ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

[Oko tillo]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

==

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution...

So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there.

Oh, strata and so very very much more. For example, he has informed us that:

"There is no proof of a subduction zone. There is no proof of faults
remarking "plates."

My study of the geography is that you have areas of which rock and you have
areas of sediment. Where the two meet you have sediments that break away
from rock, as they aren't cemented together. You have the issue of
underground water movement. You have trapped gasses underground from
rotting pre-flood vegetation and animals. In San Francisco you have areas of
rock and you have sediment and buried trash. This make for an unstable
situation. This is the real situation, and is fact, unlike the plate
tectonic theory. I don't deny the plate theory, as I think it quite
possible that the hydroplate theory is correct.

I haven't discussed volcanism here, but I do not believe that the phenomena
is related to plates. Volcanic rock analysis shows that it's composition
contains potassium. Potassium explodes upon contact with water".

-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/gZDs3TnnVQk/UjrsvdAgAwAJ

(Marvin, I do hope his conflating plate tectonics with "hydroplate theory" doesn't cause
you as severe muscle spasming as his conflating ionic and elemental potassium did me)


Oko

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
- ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

==

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution...

So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there.

"There is no proof of a subduction zone. There is no proof of faults
remarking "plates."
My study of the geography is that you have areas of which rock and you have
areas of sediment. Where the two meet you have sediments that break away
from rock, as they aren't cemented together. You have the issue of
underground water movement. You have trapped gasses underground from
rotting pre-flood vegetation and animals. In San Francisco you have areas of
rock and you have sediment and buried trash. This make for an unstable
situation. This is the real situation, and is fact, unlike the plate
tectonic theory. I don't deny the plate theory, as I think it quite
possible that the hydroplate theory is correct.
I haven't discussed volcanism here, but I do not believe that the phenomena
is related to plates. Volcanic rock analysis shows that it's composition
contains potassium. Potassium explodes upon contact with water".
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/gZDs3TnnVQk/UjrsvdAgAwAJ
(Marvin, I do hope his conflating plate tectonics with "hydroplate theory" doesn't cause
you as severe muscle spasming as his conflating ionic and elemental potassium did me)

Thanks for the humor, Oko! So much ignorance in such a short statement. It's Amazing!

Marvin Sebourn

Post by Oko tillo
Oko

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn
- ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

[Andrew]

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event. But that doesn't fit in with
the fantasized story they taught you.

Thus you remain deceived and wedded to a false
paradigm, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

[Oko tillo]

Post by Andrew
=

=

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event. But that doesn't fit in with
the fantasized story they taught you.
Thus you remain deceived and wedded to a false
paradigm, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Speaking of deceptive stories, those "strata" -- where's the video
you usually put up at this point? -- those "strata were loose
uncompacted volcanic ash.

You do understand the difference between a pile
of tuff and a stratum of granite or slate or olivine, yes?

Or no?


Oko

[Miloch]

In article <f25f3bc8-3131-44c2-a77f-***@googlegroups.com>, Oko tillo
says...

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Andrew
=

=

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event. But that doesn't fit in with
the fantasized story they taught you.
Thus you remain deceived and wedded to a false
paradigm, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Speaking of deceptive stories, those "strata" -- where's the video
you usually put up at this point? -- those "strata were loose
uncompacted volcanic ash.
You do understand the difference between a pile
of tuff and a stratum of granite or slate or olivine, yes?
Or no?
Oko

...Andy actually gets a couple of points and a hearty "Bravo" for posting the
seldomly used words "false paradigm".



*

[Lucifer]

On Thu, 14 May 2020 01:26:26 -0700, "Andrew"

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event. But that doesn't fit in with
the fantasized story they taught you.
Thus you remain deceived and wedded to a false
paradigm, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Why is it so important to you that you were created
by an evil entity?

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event. But that doesn't fit in with
the fantasized story they taught you.

Andrew, you are pig-ignorant of the geology I was taught. And apparently pig-ignorant in many other areas.

Nearly half of the "fantasized story they taught you" (that's me) was the roughly 24 semester hours of instruction I was given by Jan van Donk, with a PhD in Geology who worked at Lamont-Doherty with Wallace Broecker. Jan also took time out to serve as a Mennonite missionary in Africa. Jan was a treasured friend of mine.

Andrew, part of the geological story you have been taught comes from Daniel Alexander Cannon, https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1robsy?playlist=x2vpxk
who has no claimed training in geology, who was wanted on Grand Larceny 3 warrants, who has claimed that the Sandy Hook Massacre is a hoax, who has also had a warrant for his arrest for Grand Larceny, https://apps.adacounty.id.gov/sheriff/reports/warrants.aspx

Post by Andrew
Thus you remain deceived and wedded to a false
paradigm, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

You are the deceiver. You have no evidence. Whether you are a true believer or simply a POE, you are disgusting.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Andrew]

"Marvin Sebourn" wrote in message news:74c3bfe6-ef07-46cc-9219-***@googlegroups.com...

An "ad hom" only with no substance to the subject matter.

A tactic used by those who argue from a -->false position.

[a322x1n]

Post by Andrew
An "ad hom" only with no substance to the subject matter.
A tactic used by those who argue from a -->false position.

After all this time, one basic fact remains:

Evolution equals truth. Creationism and ID equals lie.

End of story.

[RichA]

Post by a322x1n
Evolution equals truth. Creationism and ID equals lie.
End of story.

Rev. Pat Robertson said today that God has created Trump's Wuhan Virus to
kill Christians, calling them to Heaven by way of a horrible death where they
will suffocate as their lungs liquify.


He's added a cruel twist. If they attend the funeral, they will be infected
and share the same fate as the dead loved one.

[Miloch]

Post by RichA

Post by a322x1n
Evolution equals truth. Creationism and ID equals lie.
End of story.

Rev. Pat Robertson said today that God has created Trump's Wuhan Virus to
kill Christians, calling them to Heaven by way of a horrible death where they
will suffocate as their lungs liquify.
He's added a cruel twist. If they attend the funeral, they will be infected
and share the same fate as the dead loved one.

...at 90, he's long past the point where people pay any attention to him...even
his wife of 66 years prolly turns off her hearing aid when she sees him coming.

...out of hearing...out of mind.



*

[y***@gmail.com]

Post by Miloch

Post by RichA

Post by a322x1n
Evolution equals truth. Creationism and ID equals lie.
End of story.

Rev. Pat Robertson said today that God has created Trump's Wuhan Virus to
kill Christians, calling them to Heaven by way of a horrible death where they
will suffocate as their lungs liquify.
He's added a cruel twist. If they attend the funeral, they will be infected
and share the same fate as the dead loved one.

...at 90, he's long past the point where people pay any attention to him...even
his wife of 66 years prolly turns off her hearing aid when she sees him coming.
...out of hearing...out of mind.

Pat Robertson is the biggest crook on earth who is allowed to con the fools openly.....

[Oko tillo]

==

Post by Andrew
An "ad hom" only with no substance to the subject matter.
A tactic used by those who argue from a -->false position.

That right? Kind of hard to tell what you're refuting when you snip out
then entire post.

But assuming it was about Daniel Alexander Cannon,
when did a "By their fruits shall you know them" become an ad hom?

Oko

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Andrew
An "ad hom" only with no substance to the subject matter.

Not true. It reflects upon the character and background of Daniel Alexander Cannon in comparison to the USGS statements on the Hilina slope, and your claim that I have been taught a "fantasized story" regarding several points in geology, maybe many.

So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed. You, in your ignorance say "no".

Has Cannon shown that he is competent by reason of experience or education to make pronouncements concerning geology, particularly those contradicting USGS information? Not that I have seen. Has Cannon shown that he operates consistently in a manner representing upright behavior? Show me.

So we can compare Cannon and the USGS.

But maybe you can surprise us with the breadth of your geological experience and education, Andrew. You show lately that when confounded you cry "informal fallacy", frightened to answer in a substantive manner.

You are a disgrace to your professed beliefs.

Post by Andrew
A tactic used by those who argue from a -->false position.

Crying "informal fallacy" is a technique often used by those who cannot support their argument,

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Automatic]

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed.

So where did you get the half a quote from? And can you prove your point of that rule you just seem to have manufactured on the fly when it supposedly suited you?

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed.

So where did you get the half a quote from? And can you prove your point of that rule you just seem to have manufactured on the fly when it supposedly suited you?

So where were you earlier in the thread when I told you "So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there."? First things first.

Scared?
Ignorant?
In another time line?

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Automatic]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed.

So where did you get the half a quote from? And can you prove your point of that rule you just seem to have manufactured on the fly when it supposedly suited you?

So where were you earlier in the thread when I told you "So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there."? First things first.
Scared?
Ignorant?
In another time line?

You didn't type that at me.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed.

So where did you get the half a quote from? And can you prove your point of that rule you just seem to have manufactured on the fly when it supposedly suited you?

So where were you earlier in the thread when I told you "So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there."? First things first.
Scared?
Ignorant?
In another time line?

Amazingly...

Post by Automatic
You didn't type that at me.

Of course I did. Look earlier in the thread.

Can you find it now, or do I need to further explain how things work here?
Have you repressed it?

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Automatic]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed.

So where did you get the half a quote from? And can you prove your point of that rule you just seem to have manufactured on the fly when it supposedly suited you?

So where were you earlier in the thread when I told you "So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there."? First things first.
Scared?
Ignorant?
In another time line?

Amazingly...

Post by Automatic
You didn't type that at me.

Of course I did. Look earlier in the thread.
Can you find it now, or do I need to further explain how things work here?
Have you repressed it?

It wasn't typed at me:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.atheism/vrqR81qEvxw/EJEoASCUAAAJ

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed.

So where did you get the half a quote from? And can you prove your point of that rule you just seem to have manufactured on the fly when it supposedly suited you?

So where were you earlier in the thread when I told you "So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there."? First things first.
Scared?
Ignorant?
In another time line?

Amazingly...

Post by Automatic
You didn't type that at me.

Of course I did. Automatic and Amazing are two of my socks and they are essentially interchangeable. I bring them out of the lower sock drawer (they're obviously not top-drawer socks) to air out.

Face it-you're a sock. You can't prove otherwise. Anytime I want you to do or say anything, you will do it.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Of course I did. Look earlier in the thread.
Can you find it now, or do I need to further explain how things work here?
Have you repressed it?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.atheism/vrqR81qEvxw/EJEoASCUAAAJ

[Automatic]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed.

So where did you get the half a quote from? And can you prove your point of that rule you just seem to have manufactured on the fly when it supposedly suited you?

So where were you earlier in the thread when I told you "So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there."? First things first.
Scared?
Ignorant?

Amazingly...

Post by Automatic
You didn't type that at me.

Of course I did. Automatic and Amazing are two of my socks

Thanks for admitting you use sockpuppets, but I am not one of them.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Post by Automatic
Thanks for admitting you use sockpuppets, but I am not one of them.

Yes, Robert, you are

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed.

So where did you get the half a quote from? And can you prove your point of that rule you just seem to have manufactured on the fly when it supposedly suited you?

So where were you earlier in the thread when I told you "So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there."? First things first.
Scared?
Ignorant?

Amazingly...

Post by Automatic
You didn't type that at me.

Of course I did. Automatic and Amazing are two of my socks

Thanks for admitting you use sockpuppets, but I am not one of them.

Of course you are one of my sockpuppets. You can't prove otherwise.

Further proof of your sock puppet life is shown by your snipping of most of my post.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Automatic]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So is an ad hominem ever valid? "Ad hominem is only valid when the person's character or background has a specific bearing on the matter being discussed.

So where did you get the half a quote from? And can you prove your point of that rule you just seem to have manufactured on the fly when it supposedly suited you?

So where were you earlier in the thread when I told you "So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs there."? First things first.
Scared?
Ignorant?

Amazingly...

Post by Automatic
You didn't type that at me.

Of course I did. Automatic and Amazing are two of my socks

Thanks for admitting you use sockpuppets, but I am not one of them.

Of course you are one of my sockpuppets. You can't prove otherwise.

So you are wrong about that.

[%]

.

they'll be here for you soon

[Andrew]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Andrew
An "ad hom" only with no substance to the subject matter.

Not true. It reflects upon the character and background of Daniel
Alexander Cannon in comparison to the USGS statements on the
Hilina slope,

The Hilina Slump is detaching from the big island and has been
moving seaward.

Here's a picture of what is likely to occur when it collapses to
the ocean floor miles below.

And here is the activity going on in the area right now even as
we speak.

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/may-2020-earthquake-swarm-l-ihi-seamount

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Andrew
An "ad hom" only with no substance to the subject matter.

Not true. It reflects upon the character and background of Daniel
Alexander Cannon in comparison to the USGS statements on the
Hilina slope,

The Hilina Slump is detaching from the big island and has been
moving seaward.
Here's a picture of what is likely to occur when it collapses to
the ocean floor miles below.
http://youtu.be/VvMUJKFjAiA
And here is the activity going on in the area right now even as
we speak.
https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/may-2020-earthquake-swarm-l-ihi-seamount

You were afraid to address the main points of my post, and snipped them in cowardly frustration.

Your link http://youtu.be/VvMUJKFjAiA
ends with (penultimately)

"But with recurrence intervals of ~ 200,000 years, it's not likely to happen in our lifetime..."

What other possible mega-death scenarios have you wet your pants considering? Wasn't there the possible Yellowstone disaster? The South Whidbey island Fault? The Seattle Fault? The Cascadia Subduction Zone?

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Oko tillo]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Andrew
An "ad hom" only with no substance to the subject matter.

Not true. It reflects upon the character and background of Daniel
Alexander Cannon in comparison to the USGS statements on the
Hilina slope,

The Hilina Slump is detaching from the big island and has been
moving seaward.
Here's a picture of what is likely to occur when it collapses to
the ocean floor miles below.
http://youtu.be/VvMUJKFjAiA
And here is the activity going on in the area right now even as
we speak.
https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/may-2020-earthquake-swarm-l-ihi-seamount

You were afraid to address the main points of my post, and snipped them in cowardly frustration.
Your link http://youtu.be/VvMUJKFjAiA
ends with (penultimately)
"But with recurrence intervals of ~ 200,000 years, it's not likely to happen in our lifetime..."

==

Post by Marvin Sebourn
What other possible mega-death scenarios have you wet your pants considering? Wasn't there the possible Yellowstone disaster? The South Whidbey island Fault? The Seattle Fault? The Cascadia Subduction Zone?

That last one is the one that actually concerns me, back here in the real world.


Oko

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Andrew
An "ad hom" only with no substance to the subject matter.

Not true. It reflects upon the character and background of Daniel
Alexander Cannon in comparison to the USGS statements on the
Hilina slope,

The Hilina Slump is detaching from the big island and has been
moving seaward.
Here's a picture of what is likely to occur when it collapses to
the ocean floor miles below.
http://youtu.be/VvMUJKFjAiA
And here is the activity going on in the area right now even as
we speak.
https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/may-2020-earthquake-swarm-l-ihi-seamount

You were afraid to address the main points of my post, and snipped them in cowardly frustration.
Your link http://youtu.be/VvMUJKFjAiA
ends with (penultimately)
"But with recurrence intervals of ~ 200,000 years, it's not likely to happen in our lifetime..."

==

Post by Marvin Sebourn
What other possible mega-death scenarios have you wet your pants considering? Wasn't there the possible Yellowstone disaster? The South Whidbey island Fault? The Seattle Fault? The Cascadia Subduction Zone?

That last one is the one that actually concerns me, back here in the real world.

Yes. The average recurrence rate is something like two or three hundred years. I believe.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by Oko tillo
Oko

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn

[Andrew]

"Oko tillo" wrote in message news:08057453-3af4-41a1-9f48-***@googlegroups.com...
<>

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Marvin Sebourn
What other possible mega-death scenarios have you wet your pants considering?
Wasn't there the possible Yellowstone disaster? The South Whidbey island Fault?
The Seattle Fault? The Cascadia Subduction Zone?

That last one is the one that actually concerns me, back here in the real world.
Oko

Cascadia Sizzle ----> https://tinyurl.com/y9vwrou7

[LinuxGal]

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event.

We've got cross-referenced tree ring chronologies going
back 12,460 years, twice as old as Bishop Ussher's
timeline of the universe.

[Don Martin]

Post by LinuxGal

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event.

We've got cross-referenced tree ring chronologies going
back 12,460 years, twice as old as Bishop Ussher's
timeline of the universe.

Ah, but after the Flood, the well-watered trees grew twice as fast for
700 years, putting on all those extra rings!

[Oko tillo]

==

Post by LinuxGal

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event.

We've got cross-referenced tree ring chronologies going
back 12,460 years, twice as old as Bishop Ussher's
timeline of the universe.

In another recent thread I invited Andrew:

I have, courtesy of RationalWiki, thirty nine lines of historical evidence
for the age of the earth, ranging from its being over ten thousand years
old to its being over a billion years old.

Andrew's response -- and bear with me here, because I think it's only fair
that I quote it in its entirety -- Andrew's response was as follows:









Oko

[SkyEyes]

Post by LinuxGal

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event.

We've got cross-referenced tree ring chronologies going
back 12,460 years, twice as old as Bishop Ussher's
timeline of the universe.

Ah, consilience. Love it. And aren't there ice cores going back just about as far?

Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
***@cox.net

[Don Martin]

Post by SkyEyes

Post by LinuxGal

Post by Andrew

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So let's discuss your ideas of "geological strata".

Strata may be laid down very quickly, as we saw in
the Mt. St. Helens event.

We've got cross-referenced tree ring chronologies going
back 12,460 years, twice as old as Bishop Ussher's
timeline of the universe.

Ah, consilience. Love it. And aren't there ice cores going back just about as far?

At least: try nearly a third of a million years
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core).

[Cloud Hobbit]

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address.

The truth is that without Darwin's theory there would be no way to figure out biology, and things like evolutionary medicine and antibiotics would disappear.

You can still find a textbook, if you look hard enough, that talk about supposed, non-existent gill slits on human embryos as if they do exist. Science is about observation and not about made-up contrived fake-news on evolution belief.

You can find newer textbooks that say otherwise because of newer better information.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/are-the-gill-slits-of-vertebrate-embryos-a-hoax/

Are the “gill slits” of vertebrate embryos a hoax?

As most of us know (and all of us who have read WEIT), all vertebrate embryos develop “branchial clefts” (also called “pharyngeal arches” or “branchial arches”) at an early stage, and these are almost certainly the vestigial remnants of the clefts of our fishy ancestors, which develop into gills. Those branchial clefts are sometimes called “gill arches,” even in species, like reptiles, bird, and mammals, that never have gills. In humans, for example, the clefts disappear and transform into other parts of the body, including the jaw, the middle ear, and the larynx. Here’s a photo from Wikipedia showing them in humans:

The creationist/ID attack on “gill slits” in amniotes (basically, mammals, birds, and reptiles) goes as follows (this is from Britain’s post).

Pharyngeal structures of amniote embryos never function as gills and therefore should not be referred to as “gill slits”.
Whatever resemblance to the gills of aquatic vertebrates the pharyngeal structures of amniotes has, it is superficial.
Seeing the pharyngeal structures of amniote embryos as being gill-like and calling them gill-slits despite their not functioning as gills is “reading evolution into development”.

Britain takes these claims completely apart. Go read his post: it’s long but really educational and accessible to everyone. If you want to spend half an hour learning some great evolutionary biology, by all means invest it in reading Britain’s discussion.

Oko

Post by Amazing Answers
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

[Davej]

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

[Jahnu]

Post by Davej
In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

That's why it's such a sad time for you, Kødkurt.

Der er da ikke noget at sige til, at du er så hamrende snotdum, når du
er vokset op i Indre Mission, dybt ude på mørkelandet. Man skal
selvfølgelig være et ikke tænkende væsen for at blive født til sådan
en Kirketilværelse.

Og nu har du stolt skiftet den illusion du blev født ind i, ud med
den illusion en flok undermennnesker på usenet tilbyder dig...

Godt gået Flæskedreng.

Look, God talks about you, flæskedreng.

Krishna says:


Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among
mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the
atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me. (Bg 7.15 )

[Davej]

Post by Davej
In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

That's why it's such a sad time for you, Kødkurt.[...]

Oh mon dieu, le dimwit semble penser qu'il doit citer un peu plus
de déchets de son livre de magie sacrée. Personne ne demande rien
de ces ordures fantastiques. Vous gardez juste ce fantasme idiot
comme votre propre secret personnel là-bas.

[Jahnu]

Post by Davej
Oh mon dieu, le dimwit semble penser qu'il doit citer un peu plus
de déchets de son livre de magie sacrée. Personne ne demande rien
de ces ordures fantastiques. Vous gardez juste ce fantasme idiot
comme votre propre secret personnel là-bas.

hahaha :) Listen to the fleshboy, who grew up in the darklands of
Denmark, trying to impress everyone that he knows french.

Try again googleboy. Your English, like your French, is like a google
translation :D

You better stay with the Church-snot you grew up with, fleshboy.


Krishna says:

My dear Arjuna, because you are never envious of Me, I shall impart to
you this most confidential knowledge and realization, knowing which
you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence. (Bg. 9.1)

This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all
secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct
perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of
religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed. (Bg. 9.2)

[Amazing Answers]

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school. I went to public schools and a University.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school.

Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.

A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Automatic]

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?
Marvin Sebourn

Hey 'marv', check this out, man, it may blow your mind.
What makes you think that the nym you are responding to, actually holds to the viewpoints in reality he is arguing against with, in other words, like you, he is just portraying a character to argue against you, personally, like you are.

[Automatic]

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?
Marvin Sebourn

Hey 'marv', check this out, man, it may blow your mind.
What makes you think that the nym you are responding to, actually holds to the viewpoints in reality he is arguing against you with, in other words, like you, he is just portraying a character to argue against you, personally, like you are.

[%]

.

did you thing

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?
Marvin Sebourn

Hey 'marv', check this out, man, it may blow your mind.
What makes you think that the nym you are responding to, actually holds to the viewpoints in reality he is arguing against you with, (?)

For Andrew, I don' know whether he is a true believer or a POE. I believe the chances of him being a POE are minimal.

in other words, like you, he is just portraying a character to argue against > you, personally, like you are.

I don't portray a character in the sense you are using. This is only your delusion. I regret that I can't carry on a fairly normal conversation with you.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Automatic]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

in other words, like you, he is just portraying a character to argue against > you, personally, like you are.

I don't portray a character in the sense you are using. This is only your delusion.
Marvin Sebourn

"marv', I already showed your credentials are a sham.
You left for months because of it.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Automatic

Post by Marvin Sebourn

in other words, like you, he is just portraying a character to argue against > you, personally, like you are.

I don't portray a character in the sense you are using. This is only your delusion.
Marvin Sebourn

"marv', I already showed your credentials are a sham.

Lie.

Post by Automatic
You left for months because of it.

Lie.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Amazing Answers]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school.

Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?

Better question is can you trust evolution teaching professors who were graduates of colleges that taught gill slits in human embryos - that being false?

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn

[Davej]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Marvin Sebourn
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?

Better question is can you trust evolution teaching professors who
were graduates of colleges that taught gill slits in human embryos
- that being false?

You seem to believe this gill slit/pharyngeal arch thing was a
catastrophic error rather than a minor issue of terminology
while at the same time accepting completely childish nonsense
from your Bible. How did Noah collect those animals from other
continents? Where did all that water come from and where did it
go, cotton-eyed Joe?

[tirebiter]

Post by Davej

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Marvin Sebourn
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?

Better question is can you trust evolution teaching professors who
were graduates of colleges that taught gill slits in human embryos
- that being false?

You seem to believe this gill slit/pharyngeal arch thing was a
catastrophic error rather than a minor issue of terminology
while at the same time accepting completely childish nonsense
from your Bible. How did Noah collect those animals from other
continents? Where did all that water come from and where did it
go, cotton-eyed Joe?

And why didn't all the fish die?

More fundamentally, this alleged god created the whole universe
in only 6 days. Yet it took nearly a year to flood just the
earth. Why didn't this clearly incompetent god simply
recreate the universe? And then not make the idiotic mistake
of placing the humans who were devoid of knowing good vs. evil,
right next to the forbidden fruit tree.

After all, if you're totally incapable of comprehending good
or bad, how can you know when you're doing something which
is wrong? And being threatened with death means nothing
when you've never seen anything die.

That god is a maroon.

---
a.a. #2276

[Don Martin]

On Wed, 13 May 2020 20:09:19 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school.

Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?

The Close Cover Before Striking University of Universal Knowledge has
a policy forbidding refunds from suckers.

[SkyEyes]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school.

Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?

Just because a person attends a university doesn't mean s/he learned anything. I recently met someone who graduated from Yale in 1948 who hadn't the foggiest notion of what critical thinking was.

Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
***@cox.net

[Amazing Answers]

Post by SkyEyes

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school.

Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?

Just because a person attends a university doesn't mean s/he learned anything. I recently met someone who graduated from Yale in 1948 who hadn't the foggiest notion of what critical thinking was.
Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

I never boost my words by appealing to my education. My intent was merely to counter the claim that my education was a Bible school, a claim that is not true.

[y***@gmail.com]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by SkyEyes

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school.

Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?

Just because a person attends a university doesn't mean s/he learned anything. I recently met someone who graduated from Yale in 1948 who hadn't the foggiest notion of what critical thinking was.
Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

I never boost my words by appealing to my education. My intent was merely to counter the claim that my education was a Bible school, a claim that is not true.

While bible school is stupid, your home schooling is probably worse...

[unknown]

On Sat, 16 May 2020, SkyEyes <***@cox.net> wrote:
<...>

Post by SkyEyes
Just because a person attends a university doesn't mean s/he learned anything.
I recently met someone who graduated from Yale in 1948 who hadn't the foggiest
notion of what critical thinking was.

Oh, Brenda, that's so ironic coming from a woman.
Most women, for the most part, emote first and think
second, if at all. And, the few who do manage to think
do so mostly bereft of logic.

[LinuxGal]

Post by unknown
Oh, Brenda, that's so ironic coming from a woman.
Most women, for the most part, emote first and think
second, if at all. And, the few who do manage to think
do so mostly bereft of logic.

Congratulations on becoming the first entry in my killfile.

[Amazing Answers]

Post by LinuxGal

Post by unknown
Oh, Brenda, that's so ironic coming from a woman.
Most women, for the most part, emote first and think
second, if at all. And, the few who do manage to think
do so mostly bereft of logic.

Congratulations on becoming the first entry in my killfile.
--
Linux Geeks: Smart. Single. Sexy.
Well, two out of three ain't bad!
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

I was expecting a clever statement from you.

[LinuxGal]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by LinuxGal

Post by unknown
Oh, Brenda, that's so ironic coming from a woman.
Most women, for the most part, emote first and think
second, if at all. And, the few who do manage to think
do so mostly bereft of logic.

Congratulations on becoming the first entry in my killfile.

I was expecting a clever statement from you.

Life is too short to match clever for stupid.

[unknown]

On Sat, 16 May 2020, Amazing Answers <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

<...>

Post by Amazing Answers
I was expecting a clever statement from you.

Yup. LG let us all down with a trite kill file lame.

[unknown]

Post by LinuxGal

Post by unknown
Oh, Brenda, that's so ironic coming from a woman.
Most women, for the most part, emote first and think
second, if at all. And, the few who do manage to think
do so mostly bereft of logic.

Congratulations on becoming the first entry in my killfile.

LOL. I was excluding you when I said "most women".
You are among the few women who can at least
somewhat think logically but you still need work as
some of my replies to you have pointed out already.

[Oko tillo]

Post by unknown

Post by LinuxGal

Post by unknown
Oh, Brenda, that's so ironic coming from a woman.
Most women, for the most part, emote first and think
second, if at all. And, the few who do manage to think
do so mostly bereft of logic.

Congratulations on becoming the first entry in my killfile.

LOL. I was excluding you when I said "most women".
You are among the few women who can at least
somewhat think logically but you still need work as
some of my replies to you have pointed out already.

The First Rule of Holes ...

Oko

[Don Martin]

Post by SkyEyes

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school.

Amazing Answers: > I went to public schools and a University.
A University, Amazing! Did they give you your money back?

Just because a person attends a university doesn't mean s/he learned anything. I recently met someone who graduated from Yale in 1948 who hadn't the foggiest notion of what critical thinking was.

Be fair--an Ivy League degree is no defense against senile dementia.

[Jahnu]

On Wed, 13 May 2020 18:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers

Post by Amazing Answers
Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school. I went to public schools and a University.

You people really need to get over the Church-snot you grew up with.

Jahnu Das, Jahnu-dasa at ISKCON Mayapur (1982-present)
Answered just now
Humans are trained to think from the moment they are born. Thus, a
human’s thoughts and convictions are conditioned by the culture he or
she grew up in.

In the global culture humans are trained to think of existence in
terms of their body and its culture, which means that most of their
thoughts revolve around bodily needs like eating, sleeping, mating,
and defending.

Thus, the modern culture, in which people are being trained to focus
their thoughts mainly on gratifying their senses, has barely evolved
beyond the animal stage, .

In a proper human culture people will be trained up according to the
Vedic model, which apart from teaching people to maintain their bodily
existence in a proper and responsible way, also teaches people to
think in terms of their spiritual selves, the soul.

A culture that does not train its population in the spiritual
knowledge available in the Vedas, is hardly more than a culture of
polished animals.

Every problem in the world can be solved by introducing a genuine
process of spiritual knowledge. The more people are trained up in that
process of knowledge the more heavenly their lives will be, and the
more people deviate from that knowledge, the more hellish their lives
will be.

Very few people, however, are willing to listen to the ancient Vedic
knowledge presented by Krishna in Bhagavad Gita, and made available
world-wide by Hare Krishna, and therefore the world is going to hell.

“Both animals and men share the activities of eating, sleeping, mating
and defending. But the special property of the humans is that they are
able to engage in spiritual life. Therefore without spiritual life,
humans are on the level of animals.”—Hitopadesa

In any human society, there are always present three classes of people
- ungodly people (demons), godly people (devotees), and the innocent
masses.

The general public is considered innocent, because they are not
demons, only influenced by demons. They will follow who ever is in
charge. When demons are in charge, as is the case at this point in
history, they follow them, and if godly people are in charge, they
will follow them.

Of course, so-called religious leaders of the world have also taken to
ungodly ways.

Strapping oneself in explosives, blowing up women and children in a
mall or at a mosque, obviously, has nothing to do with God. They may
scream the name of Allah, as they push the button, but so what? Only
insane people can get into their heads that blowing up civilians, will
take them to paradise, where they’ll screw virgins for the rest of
eternity. Seriously, who but a bunch of demons would come up with
stuff like that?

Same with the Church - simply politics disguised as religion.
Denouncing all other religions as the work of the devil, saying only
Jesus saves, and if you don’t believe that, you’ll burn in hell
forever, that’s actually quite ungodly. Add to that the Pope - simply
a common meat-eater, a political figure with no spiritual knowledge
what so ever.

Basically, the Abrahamic religions can be considered godless. There is
just no way around it. Theologically and philosophically, Christianity
and Islam are an affront to a working intellect, so they are easy
victims of atheistic propaganda.

In fact , in the global culture religion is being used by the ungodly
class of men to ridicule and scorn God. The world right now is ruled
by demons, and if that doesn’t change, these demons will destroy the
world, and send themselves and their followers to hell.

By following the ungodly class of men, the innocent public will live
under hellish conditions in this life and the next, as well

By following devotees of Krishna, the innocent public will live happy
and content lives, both now and in the future. It’s really that
simple.

Krishna says:

Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not
to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found
in them. (Bg 16.7)

They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in
control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other
than lust. (Bg. 16.8)

Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves
and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works
meant to destroy the world. (Bg. 16.9)

[Davej]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were
right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the
animals onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY
FALSE, but somehow your indoctrinated brain just ignores
that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my
background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible
school. I went to public schools and a University.

So you were a stupid child who sat around reading Chick Tracts
all day? Who cares? You accept obvious Bible bullshit and yet
nitpick historical science errors.

[SkyEyes]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school. I went to public schools and a University.

So did I. I also went to bible school, which was held every summer at my church. You apparently don't know what bible school *is*.

Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
***@cox.net

[Amazing Answers]

Post by SkyEyes

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school. I went to public schools and a University.

So did I. I also went to bible school, which was held every summer at my church. You apparently don't know what bible school *is*.
Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

You mean a Bible study is a Bible school?

Most of the foundation of what I came to believe was established before I started attending churches. When I went to church science and the Bible was something that wasn't discussed. Bible prophecy wasn't even discussed in 90% of the churches I visited. For my education I purchased my own books and checked out books in the library. Don't think you can visit some church this weekend and hear a lecture on creationism or evolution. You most likely won't.

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school. I went to public schools and a University.

Then you should, by your knowledge and experience consent to a discussion of your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs here.

How about the age of the earth or the Grand Canyon as a Noah's flood feature? Or?

Since geological strata is one of two reasons you reject evolution, you should be prepared to defend your beliefs.

Or you can use your fourth grade text containing information on gill slits to support your counter-beliefs.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Amazing Answers]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Are you claiming to be omnipotent - having knowledge of my background? But you don't as I have never gone to Bible school. I went to public schools and a University.

Then you should, by your knowledge and experience consent to a discussion of your ideas of "geological strata". We can examine the truth or falsity of your beliefs here.
How about the age of the earth or the Grand Canyon as a Noah's flood feature? Or?
Since geological strata is one of two reasons you reject evolution, you should be prepared to defend your beliefs.
Or you can use your fourth grade text containing information on gill slits to support your counter-beliefs.
Marvin Sebourn

I didn't know you wanted to discuss out of place fossils in strata, in upside down strata, about lab studies showing that deposition occurs not layer upon layer, but all layers virtually simultaneously and not bottom to up, but bottom and up sideways. Also, didn't know you wanted to discuss the dating of ten year old strata on top of Mt St Helens that date in the millions, or the built in assumptions in regard to dating methods.

I didn't think you had wanted to discuss these things.

[Siri Cruise]

In article

Post by Davej

Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I
was taught that human embryos had gill slits. Well, that turned
out to be false.

In BIBLE SCHOOL you were taught that Noah collected all the animals
onto a wooden boat. That turned out to be TOTALLY FALSE, but somehow
your indoctrinated brain just ignores that fact completely.

Or you were taught the story is a parable that adapted another
story well known tp the ancient audience into a lesson on the
importance of having laws.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

So, you are one example when con preachers told you that there is a pixie living up in the sky ready to serve you, you believed without restrain totally?

But so many years had passed and you found nothing....then what?

[Amazing Answers]

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

So, you are one example when con preachers told you that there is a pixie living up in the sky ready to serve you, you believed without restrain totally?
But so many years had passed and you found nothing....then what?

As one who was determined to study hard to obtain As in school, I found that deliberation and cognition are the keys to success. Success being the achievement of structure - of design and composition. Noticing structure and design components in nature, and the complexity thereof, I simply relate my own personal experience and knowledge and cast no exception to the universe at large. The universe is simply too complex and well designed to confine it to chance and naturalistic processes.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

So, you are one example when con preachers told you that there is a pixie living up in the sky ready to serve you, you believed without restrain totally?
But so many years had passed and you found nothing....then what?

As one who was determined to study hard to obtain As in school, I found that deliberation and cognition are the keys to success. Success being the achievement of structure - of design and composition. Noticing structure and design components in nature, and the complexity thereof, I simply relate my own personal experience and knowledge and cast no exception to the universe at large. The universe is simply too complex and well designed to confine it to chance and naturalistic processes.

You have no sense to notice anything...
If you mix oil in water and let them settle, there will be 2 layers which are the solution without any interference of a pixie and is done in accordance with physical laws!!!!!!!!! But to theist like you, you want it to be the result of an extraordinary powerful creature??????????????????

Is that it, AmazingStupid????

[y***@gmail.com]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

So, you are one example when con preachers told you that there is a pixie living up in the sky ready to serve you, you believed without restrain totally?
But so many years had passed and you found nothing....then what?

As one who was determined to study hard to obtain As in school, I found that deliberation and cognition are the keys to success. Success being the achievement of structure - of design and composition. Noticing structure and design components in nature, and the complexity thereof, I simply relate my own personal experience and knowledge and cast no exception to the universe at large. The universe is simply too complex and well designed to confine it to chance and naturalistic processes.

Without ability to comprehend what I have written, you just repeat your nonsense as usual style of your broken head!!!

Choosing to run away is what you fools can do best...

[michellemalkingmail.com]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

So, you are one example when con preachers told you that there is a pixie living up in the sky ready to serve you, you believed without restrain totally?
But so many years had passed and you found nothing....then what?

As one who was determined to study hard to obtain As in school, I found that deliberation and cognition are the keys to success. Success being the achievement of structure - of design and composition. Noticing structure and design components in nature, and the complexity thereof, I simply relate my own personal experience and knowledge and cast no exception to the universe at large. The universe is simply too complex and well designed to confine it to chance and naturalistic processes.

You're full of it, Johnboi. You have nothing new and are just wasting your time repeating yourself as an annoyance troll.

[Amazing Answers]

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

So, you are one example when con preachers told you that there is a pixie living up in the sky ready to serve you, you believed without restrain totally?
But so many years had passed and you found nothing....then what?

As one who was determined to study hard to obtain As in school, I found that deliberation and cognition are the keys to success. Success being the achievement of structure - of design and composition. Noticing structure and design components in nature, and the complexity thereof, I simply relate my own personal experience and knowledge and cast no exception to the universe at large. The universe is simply too complex and well designed to confine it to chance and naturalistic processes.

You're full of it, Johnboi. You have nothing new and are just wasting your time repeating yourself as an annoyance troll.

Miller split bubbles in a lab and called this reproduction and thus, life. Since scientists cannot even create life I hardly see why you could repeat your denials, Michelle Malkin of the third plane.

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 13 May 2020 13:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits.

Probably because (a) you have OCD, and (b) you're not very bright.

[michellemalkingmail.com]

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

You can still find a textbook, if you look hard enough, that talk about supposed, non-existent gill slits on human embryos as if they do exist. Science is about observation and not about made-up contrived fake-news on evolution belief.

Oko

Post by Amazing Answers
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

Try actually studying geology, Johnboi. You are very tiresome. If this is what is showing up on creationist websites again, they're desperate, too.

[Amazing Answers]

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis. Evolutionists don't like how this "evidence" has been refuted.

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

You can still find a textbook, if you look hard enough, that talk about supposed, non-existent gill slits on human embryos as if they do exist. Science is about observation and not about made-up contrived fake-news on evolution belief.

Oko

Post by Amazing Answers
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

Try actually studying geology, Johnboi. You are very tiresome. If this is what is showing up on creationist websites again, they're desperate, too.

I've put much time into studying geology. Simply put, geology is the record of catastrophe.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis. Evolutionists don't like how this "evidence" has been refuted.

Refuted by whom?
List the names of the people who refuted it, and please link to the peer reviewed papers that show this refutation.

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

You can still find a textbook, if you look hard enough, that talk about supposed, non-existent gill slits on human embryos as if they do exist. Science is about observation and not about made-up contrived fake-news on evolution belief.

Oko

Post by Amazing Answers
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

Try actually studying geology, Johnboi. You are very tiresome. If this is what is showing up on creationist websites again, they're desperate, too.

I've put much time into studying geology. Simply put, geology is the record of catastrophe.

Simply put, you are lying.

[Automatic]

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis. Evolutionists don't like how this "evidence" has been refuted.

Refuted by whom?
List the names of the people who refuted it, and please link to the peer reviewed papers that show this refutation.

At least you weren't asking for double blind studies, like you sued to against him a long time ago.
To attempt to validate how strong the position would be, seek to argue against the idea, trying to poke holes and weaknesses in such a thing.

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

You can still find a textbook, if you look hard enough, that talk about supposed, non-existent gill slits on human embryos as if they do exist. Science is about observation and not about made-up contrived fake-news on evolution belief.

Oko

Post by Amazing Answers
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

Try actually studying geology, Johnboi. You are very tiresome. If this is what is showing up on creationist websites again, they're desperate, too.

I've put much time into studying geology. Simply put, geology is the record of catastrophe.

Simply put, you are lying.

If someone was a geology student, submitting a paper entitled: 'Geology:record of catastrophe' would most likely be acceptable for a class:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890011916.pdf

If the surface densities of Ir at the two
sites are representative of the world-wide average, the diameter of a C1
type asteroid containing the necessary Ir would be 3+1 km, which is laye
enough to cause world-wide darkness (6), and hence extinctions (7), a1 though
the latter point has been disputed (8). This would be the third world-wide
stratigraphic horizon of impact-related Ir enriched rocks that has been
found with the ages being 65-66.7 (K-T boundary), 37-39.4 (Late Eocene) and
10-11.7 (bliddle Miocene) million years. This spacing suggests a periodicity
of 27-28 million years for the impact of large extraterrestrial bodies

Another stratigraphic horizon of Ir-enriched rocks has been observed
in rocks about 91-92 million years old from North America (11,12,13), Italy
(14) and Poland (15). Some of the rocks have a mantle signature (13) but
the possibility of an impact on the ocean bottom as the source of the
anomaly cannot be ruled out.

[Automatic]

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis. Evolutionists don't like how this "evidence" has been refuted.

Refuted by whom?
List the names of the people who refuted it, and please link to the peer reviewed papers that show this refutation.

At least you weren't asking for double blind studies, like you used to against him a long time ago.
To attempt to validate how strong the position would be, seek to argue against the idea, trying to poke holes and weaknesses in such a thing.

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

You can still find a textbook, if you look hard enough, that talk about supposed, non-existent gill slits on human embryos as if they do exist. Science is about observation and not about made-up contrived fake-news on evolution belief.

Oko

Post by Amazing Answers
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

Try actually studying geology, Johnboi. You are very tiresome. If this is what is showing up on creationist websites again, they're desperate, too.

I've put much time into studying geology. Simply put, geology is the record of catastrophe.

Simply put, you are lying.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890011916.pdf
If the surface densities of Ir at the two
sites are representative of the world-wide average, the diameter of a C1
type asteroid containing the necessary Ir would be 3+1 km, which is laye
enough to cause world-wide darkness (6), and hence extinctions (7), a1 though
the latter point has been disputed (8). This would be the third world-wide
stratigraphic horizon of impact-related Ir enriched rocks that has been
found with the ages being 65-66.7 (K-T boundary), 37-39.4 (Late Eocene) and
10-11.7 (bliddle Miocene) million years. This spacing suggests a periodicity
of 27-28 million years for the impact of large extraterrestrial bodies
Another stratigraphic horizon of Ir-enriched rocks has been observed
in rocks about 91-92 million years old from North America (11,12,13), Italy
(14) and Poland (15). Some of the rocks have a mantle signature (13) but
the possibility of an impact on the ocean bottom as the source of the
anomaly cannot be ruled out.

[Oko tillo]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

==

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com
The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis.

He did? I did not know that. Got the actual quote?

Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionists don't like how this "evidence" has been refuted.

Right. Because the entire and sole bit of evidence for evolution was, and still remains, "gill slits". That, and nothing more.

Just as "gill slits" is the one, single, and only example from the field of embryology that supports evolution.

Right?

You're claiming that one single mistake -- one -- out of the wide ranging field
of evo-devo destroys the entire edifice of evolution, which draws on evidence
not only embryology but from cladistics, molecular biology, population genetics,
paleontology, molecular phylogenetics, genomic analysis, and countless other
fields?

Oh, and about that single mistake that you seem to think magically sinks the entirety of
one and three quarters centuries of accumulated evidence for evolution?
It's not even a mistake. Try reading the link I gave you way back at the beginning.


-- https://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/31/gill-slits-by-any-other-name/

Oko

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

You can still find a textbook, if you look hard enough, that talk about supposed, non-existent gill slits on human embryos as if they do exist. Science is about observation and not about made-up contrived fake-news on evolution belief.

Oko

Post by Amazing Answers
I my opinion, that and the geological strata were the two strong-holds of evolution - ones that gave me some reservations against discarding evolution. But, alas, the evolutionist's day dreams and falsehood were tossed into the garbage heap of bad ideas.

Try actually studying geology, Johnboi. You are very tiresome. If this is what is showing up on creationist websites again, they're desperate, too.

I've put much time into studying geology. Simply put, geology is the record of catastrophe.

[Automatic]

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

==

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com
The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis.

He did? I did not know that. Got the actual quote?

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/origin-species-chapter-thirteen-mutual-affinities-organic-beings-morphology-embryology

[Automatic]

Post by Automatic

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

==

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com
The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis.

He did? I did not know that. Got the actual quote?

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/origin-species-chapter-thirteen-mutual-affinities-organic-beings-morphology-embryology

https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2494.xml

I shall be curious hereafter to hear what you think of Distribution during Glacial & preceding warmer period.—5 I am so glad that you do not think Chapt. on Imperfection of Geolog. Record exaggerated; I was more fearful about this Chapt, than about any part—

Embryology in Ch. XIII is one of my strongest points, I think.— But I must not bore you by running on

[%]

.

hey ping pong head

[Oko tillo]

Post by Automatic

Post by Automatic

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

==

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com
The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis.

--
He did? I did not know that. Got the actual quote?

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/origin-species-chapter-thirteen-mutual-affinities-organic-beings-morphology-embryology

https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2494.xml
I shall be curious hereafter to hear what you think of Distribution during Glacial & preceding warmer period.—5 I am so glad that you do not think Chapt. on Imperfection of Geolog. Record exaggerated; I was more fearful about this Chapt, than about any part—
Embryology in Ch. XIII is one of my strongest points, I think.— But I must not bore you by running on

Good. Not exactly what Astie claimed, but close.


Oko

[Automatic]

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Automatic

Post by Automatic

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

==

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com
The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis.

--
He did? I did not know that. Got the actual quote?

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/origin-species-chapter-thirteen-mutual-affinities-organic-beings-morphology-embryology

https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2494.xml
I shall be curious hereafter to hear what you think of Distribution during Glacial & preceding warmer period.—5 I am so glad that you do not think Chapt. on Imperfection of Geolog. Record exaggerated; I was more fearful about this Chapt, than about any part—
Embryology in Ch. XIII is one of my strongest points, I think.— But I must not bore you by running on

Good. Not exactly what Astie claimed, but close.

I haven't got to the public 1860s quotes yet, I figured that would introduce you to the topic and concept.

[Oko tillo]

Post by Automatic

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Automatic

Post by Automatic

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

==

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com
The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis.

--
He did? I did not know that. Got the actual quote?

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/origin-species-chapter-thirteen-mutual-affinities-organic-beings-morphology-embryology

https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2494.xml
I shall be curious hereafter to hear what you think of Distribution during Glacial & preceding warmer period.—5 I am so glad that you do not think Chapt. on Imperfection of Geolog. Record exaggerated; I was more fearful about this Chapt, than about any part—
Embryology in Ch. XIII is one of my strongest points, I think.— But I must not bore you by running on

==

Post by Automatic

Post by Oko tillo
Good. Not exactly what Astie claimed, but close.

I haven't got to the public 1860s quotes yet, I figured that would introduce you to the topic and concept.

I'm sorry, do you mean you're going to introduce me to evo-devo?

Sean Carroll, PZ Myers and others have already do that. But thanks.


Oko

[Automatic]

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Automatic

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Automatic

Post by Automatic

Post by Oko tillo

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

==

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com
The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis.

--
He did? I did not know that. Got the actual quote?

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/origin-species-chapter-thirteen-mutual-affinities-organic-beings-morphology-embryology

https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2494.xml
I shall be curious hereafter to hear what you think of Distribution during Glacial & preceding warmer period.—5 I am so glad that you do not think Chapt. on Imperfection of Geolog. Record exaggerated; I was more fearful about this Chapt, than about any part—
Embryology in Ch. XIII is one of my strongest points, I think.— But I must not bore you by running on

==

Post by Automatic

Post by Oko tillo
Good. Not exactly what Astie claimed, but close.

I haven't got to the public 1860s quotes yet, I figured that would introduce you to the topic and concept.

I'm sorry, do you mean you're going to introduce me to evo-devo?

Not what was being discussed, what was discussed was whether darwin held to a certain viewpoint and the strength of the viewpoint regarding embryology.

[SkyEyes]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis. Evolutionists don't like how this "evidence" has been refuted.

Oh fer christ's fucking sake, McCoy, Darwin published _On the Origin of Species_ in 1859 and died in 1882. Mountains of work have been done on evolution since then. Read something from the 21st century, why dontcha, instead of using 19th century arguments.

Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
***@cox.net

[Amazing Answers]

Post by SkyEyes

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis. Evolutionists don't like how this "evidence" has been refuted.

Oh fer christ's fucking sake, McCoy, Darwin published _On the Origin of Species_ in 1859 and died in 1882. Mountains of work have been done on evolution since then. Read something from the 21st century, why dontcha, instead of using 19th century arguments.
Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

Problem is the professors teaching t-o-d-a-y are the same ones who were taught by professors who believed what Darwin taught. That's why it's relevant.

[Oko tillo]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by SkyEyes

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis. Evolutionists don't like how this "evidence" has been refuted.

==

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by SkyEyes
Oh fer christ's fucking sake, McCoy, Darwin published _On the Origin of Species_ in 1859 and died in 1882. Mountains of work have been done on evolution since then. Read something from the 21st century, why dontcha, instead of using 19th century arguments.
Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

Problem is the professors teaching t-o-d-a-y are the same ones who were taught by professors who believed what Darwin taught.

Darwin mentioned gill slits?

Post by Amazing Answers
That's why it's relevant.

Again:

One
Single
Example

out of the mountains of research conducted over a century and three quarters
by countless numbers of researchers all over the globe working in the many
diverse sub-fields of biology and related fields, all leading to a widespread consensus
on the theory of evolution as a whole.

And yet you have ... one single example.

Oh, that and claims about "professors teaching ..." which you are doubtless unable to
back up.

Remarkably reminiscent of all your posts claiming that evolution is full of hoaxes
and yet when challenged about that, you recycle a small handful, the most recent of
them a century old.

And now I'll ask you for a third time: did you read the article I gave you explaining
why the gill slit business was not even an error in the first place?


-- https://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/31/gill-slits-by-any-other-name/


Oko

[y***@gmail.com]

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by SkyEyes

Post by Amazing Answers

Post by michellemalkingmail.com

Post by Amazing Answers
Once upon a time I was convinced that the textbooks were right. I was taught that human embryos had gill slits.
Well, that turned out to be false. Falsehood in the textbooks. No wonder scientists of today, scientists who read those out-dated textbooks, believed evolution and taught others thus so.
Once you put your ego into some weirdo doctrine it's hard to root it out of there.

==

Post by Amazing Answers
People wonder as to why I keep bringing up gill slits. But you have to take it from my point of view. I read about gill slits in my 4th grade textbook. Then later, I actually had an at home debate with a high school colleague and he brought up the challenge of the gill slits. He was upset when I said they were false. He didn't do so well that night.

Classic Asteroid7 -- always a homey anecdote that sounds like it's straight out
of a Jack Chick tract.

Tone has nothing to do with truth. It's the truth you should address. desperation, John McCoy.

The fact that you are back to the gill slits stuff again just shows that
you have nothing new to use. Gill slits in embryos is old hat and shows
your desperation. Nothing new as far as you are concerned, John McCoy.

I don't see why not. Charles Darwin said that embryology is the strongest evidence for his hypothesis. Evolutionists don't like how this "evidence" has been refuted.

Oh fer christ's fucking sake, McCoy, Darwin published _On the Origin of Species_ in 1859 and died in 1882. Mountains of work have been done on evolution since then. Read something from the 21st century, why dontcha, instead of using 19th century arguments.
Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

Problem is the professors teaching t-o-d-a-y are the same ones who were taught by professors who believed what Darwin taught. That's why it's relevant.

It is relevant because Darwinism is the correct one to be accepted by the general population! You are only a nut...

[Cloud Hobbit]

Did the percentage of scientific endorsements slip from 98% to 97.9%

You're an imbecile.
😷