"Peter J Ross" <heresiarch at meow.org> wrote in message
news:2b2dvucbg4ksqea1b5r1uk4ekm55g1glli at 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:35:32 GMT, a jury from soc.men found John
> Knight guilty of posting this:
> >Second, there' no such thing as an "evolutionary theory". A "theory"
> >requires some shred of evidence which "evolutionists" have NEVER been
> >to produce.
> >If homo sapiens "evolved" from ANY lifeform whatsoever, other than an
> >original homo sapiens, then whatever it "evolved" from would have had to
> >have been a DIFFERENT species, right? As soon as you utter the word
> >"evolve", you mandate that speciation was involved.
> >If there was NO speciation whatsoever, ever, then NOTHING could ever have
> >"Evolutionists" are MORONS who constitutes only 9% of the population who
> >"believe" that homo sapiens "evolved" from some lower life form
>> Ooh look! A Fundie! I wish I'd looked at this thread sooner.
>> I've got a little question for you, Fundie. Now that you've disproved
> the Theory of Evolution by clever use of your magical Acme
> Non-Sequitur Machine, could you advise me which of the two
> contradictory Creation stories in Genesis 1-2 I ought to believe? I
> mean, since they don't agree with each other about any of the details,
> one of them must be just as false as that boring old evolution myth,
> mustn't it?
> PJR :-)
Ooh lookie! A "liberal". Just what the world needs--another "liberal".
There's nothing contradictory in Genesis--unless you're a moron like lojbab
who thinks that it's a sign of "intelligence" to "think" like a "liberal".
If you do a little simple math, you'll see that in order for speciation to
have occurred, there would have had to have been FAR MORE [like millions of
times more] fossils of the "intermediate species" than of the original
species themselves. If speciation is as slow and gradual a process as the
9% of Americans who proclaim their STUPIDITY by promoting "evolution" claim
it is, then there would have had to have been BILLIONS of times more fossils
of these "intermediate species" than of the original species.
But you don't have even ONE bone from ONE of these "intermediate species",
All you have are monkey bones that LOOK similar to each other, stacked in an
orderly pile next to each other, coupled with the CHILDISH notion that
because they look similar, they must have had a "common ancestor".
This is even more CHILDISH than saying that because an axle from a train
found in Italy a million years looks similar to an axle from a Ferrarri
found in Chicago, they must have had a "common ancestor", or they must have
"evolved" from each other. But even you can consider that they were
DESIGNED that way, and didn't "evolve" and didn't need a "common ancestor"
to exist, right?
You have not ONE fossil of even ONE species which can be linked to each
other to prove that ANY kind of "speciation" or even "adaptation" ever
occurred. You have sheer SPECULATION, and nothing else, that an ancient
fossil that is DIFFERENT but looks SIMILAR to a modern species was a "common
ancestor" to ANYTHING on the planet today.
You also have SCIENTIFIC DNA *proof* that the "scientists" who once
proclaimed that Neanderthal and homo sapiens were "genetically linked" were
DEAD WRONG [read: they were NOT "scientists"].
Neanderthal was their last great white hope--and it's as DEAD as their