🚀 go-pugleaf

Following the Agenda of the New World Order, Sandra Peake said:

 SP> "Family kind"  as used by the author of Genesis has a specific
 SP> connotation.

     Genesis had four different authors.  Which one did you have in mind?
The one writing the Levite version of the text, the one writing the Aaronic
version of the text, the who edited the Levite version into the Israelite
version, or the one who wrote the Judean version?  (Source:  "Who Wrote The
Bible", Chapters 1 through 3.)


 SP> And mutated flies obtained by irradiation eventually breed their
 SP> offspring out of their abnormalities and into normal fruit flyhood
 SP> characteristics.

     No, they didn't.  Indeed, they passed on the new characteristics to
ever increasing numbers of offspring.  It was only after rebreeding with
"normal" (meaning unirradiated) fruit flies, do the characteristics 
*sometimes* disappear in *some* offspring (but this is due to normal 
transmission of genetic mixing; dominant characteristics will out, after all).
     How do you explain away the Hawaiian Wallabee?  It started out as a
"standard" New Zealand wallabee, escaped from a zoo in Hawaii 100 years ago,
and now is an animal that looks different from its ancestors, is capable of
digesting plants that are poisonous to its ancestors, and isn't interfertile
with its ancestors.  It has, in fact, a different taxonomic classification
that the "standard" wallabee, and is, in fact, a new species which descended
from an old one in a matter of a hundred years rather than a thousand 
generations.


 SP> some even going extinct showing little signs of evolution.

     Very probably why these species went extinct in the first place.


 MG> AND, for the umpteenth time, you hold geology and astrophysics are not
 MG> sciences as they can not be reproduced.

 SP> Never mentioned them.

     And yet your theory, that evolution cannot be true because we cannot
reproduce it in a laboratory holds just as true for astrophysics, geology,
quantum physics, and many *other* sciences.  This is, of course, nonsense.
Tons of things occur in nature which we cannot (at least *yet*) reproduce
in a laboratory.
     
     
 SP> I observed that I was human. To test it, I reproduced humans. So did
 SP> my kids. I have met the scientific definition for proving that I
 SP> descended from humans. (Although I do consider the grandkids little
 SP> monkeys at times. :-))

     This in no way, shape, or form proves creation.  All it proves is that
you are a member of H. sapiens.  (Though the jury is still out on just how
sapiens.)
 
 

 SP> I believe that the science of geology makes the assertion that there
 SP> have been a few changes in the last 100 million years? <HG> The
 SP> tuatara has not evolved in its changing environment, yet Darwinism
 SP> teaches that animals must evolve to stay fit for their environment
 SP> ...or die off. Immovable object versus irresistable force conumdrum
 SP> coming up! :-)

     Perhaps.  Or perhaps the tuatara evolved (over the period prior to the
"last 100 million years") into a form which turned out to be well suited to
its environment?  The alligator is another such animal.  Species which have
found their "perfect form" as related to their environment need not evolve
any longer, and so don't.

     I'm still waiting for you to prove that God created the earth.  But
wait, I just had a thought.  You said that since we can't duplicate it in
a laboratory, it's not real... jeez... how many scientists have failed at
duplicating the universe, ya figger?

     Jack Butler



... A writer thinks of critics as a tree feels about dogs.
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.10 [NR]
 * Origin: The Bear's Den BBS  Orlando,Florida USA  (407)876-2272 (1:363/110.0)