Remarkable footage of a flying fish...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7410421.stm

regards, Ian

On May 21, 8:23 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Remarkable footage of a flying fish...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7410421.stm
>
> regards, Ian

It's not when people like DILV are included in our evolutionary tree
Sandy

On May 21, 10:23 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Remarkable footage of a flying fish...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7410421.stm
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:   Yes...there are many species of Fish arent there ?   Before
we even consider the subject of blind, random, accidental macro-
evolution...can you show us how first life on earth arose
spontaneously (10^40,000 chance) when Spontaneous Generation was
disproven in the last century ?

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 21, 10:23 am, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>> Remarkable footage of a flying fish...
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7410421.stm
>>
>> regards, Ian
> 
> REPLY:   Yes...there are many species of Fish arent there ?

Yes. Any many species of flying fish. Evolution is wonderful, isn't it?

> Before we even consider the subject of blind, random, accidental macro-
> evolution...

Making incorrect assertions doesn't help your case.

> can you show us how first life on earth arose
> spontaneously (10^40,000 chance) when 

Another unsupported assertion. The factual nature of evolution 
doesn't depend on me, you or anyone else knowing how life first 
arose - you are back to your argument from ignorance again.

> Spontaneous Generation was
> disproven in the last century ?

Oh dear, that is just a bare faced creationist lie.

regards, Ian

"Ian Smith"  wrote
>> Spontaneous Generation was
>> disproven in the last century ?
>
> Oh dear, that is just a bare faced creationist lie.

No, it's a creationist misunderstanding. In the past when you found mice in 
grain it was assumed mice were spontaneously generated by grain. This was 
shown to be false by science. This kind of spontaneous generation is that 
kind that would exist if god could bring things into existence - yet science 
proved it didn't happen.

Steve M

Steve Marshall wrote:
> "Ian Smith"  wrote
>>> Spontaneous Generation was
>>> disproven in the last century ?
>> Oh dear, that is just a bare faced creationist lie.
> 
> No, it's a creationist misunderstanding. In the past when you found mice in 
> grain it was assumed mice were spontaneously generated by grain. This was 
> shown to be false by science. This kind of spontaneous generation is that 
> kind that would exist if god could bring things into existence - yet science 
> proved it didn't happen.

Steve - I think that, institutionally, creationists know precisely 
what they mean. I'm sure that the sky fairy footsoldiers, like Dave 
and Pahu, possibly don't understand until it is pointed out to them 
here.

Of course, once their error has been pointed out and they repeat it, 
then it does become a bare faced lie.

regards, Ian

The message <Xt6dnSwFeasw66vVRVnyhgA@posted.plusnet>
from Ian Smith  contains these words:

> Steve - I think that, institutionally, creationists know precisely 
> what they mean. I'm sure that the sky fairy footsoldiers, like Dave 
> and Pahu, possibly don't understand until it is pointed out to them 
> here.

> Of course, once their error has been pointed out and they repeat it, 
> then it does become a bare faced lie.

Lying for Jesus seems to be an accepted part of their duties!    The
curious part is that they are so dim that they think others will be
convinced by their lies. 
Their performance here would suggest that they need urgent psychiatric help.

-- 
********
David WG
********

On Fri, 23 May 2008 09:53:37 +0100, David Wynne-Griffiths
 wrote:

>The message <Xt6dnSwFeasw66vVRVnyhgA@posted.plusnet>
>from Ian Smith  contains these words:
>
>> Steve - I think that, institutionally, creationists know precisely 
>> what they mean. I'm sure that the sky fairy footsoldiers, like Dave 
>> and Pahu, possibly don't understand until it is pointed out to them 
>> here.
>
>> Of course, once their error has been pointed out and they repeat it, 
>> then it does become a bare faced lie.
>
>Lying for Jesus seems to be an accepted part of their duties!    The
>curious part is that they are so dim that they think others will be
>convinced by their lies. 

That's the sociopathic part.

Lying to further their religion has been almost a sacrament since the
earliest days of the church.

They don't even think it makes them liars.

But they're  too stupid to understand that all we see is the lie,
whatever their excuse is.

And they're too sociopathic to realise either.

So they imagine we say it to insult them, and take offence.

Confirming just how out of touch with reality they are.

>Their performance here would suggest that they need urgent psychiatric help.

Yep.

"Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
news:dbqdnThpUJM5Z6jVnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> "Ian Smith"  wrote
>>> Spontaneous Generation was
>>> disproven in the last century ?
>>
>> Oh dear, that is just a bare faced creationist lie.
>
> No, it's a creationist misunderstanding. In the past when you found mice 
> in grain it was assumed mice were spontaneously generated by grain. This 
> was shown to be false by science. This kind of spontaneous generation is 
> that kind that would exist if god could bring things into existence - yet 
> science proved it didn't happen.
>
> Steve M
>
>
>

No it didn't.  The type of nonsense in which you there indulge results from 
too much thinking in religious terms of black and white, good and evil, true 
and false.  It is also supremely wishful thinking.

Derren Brown might be able to stop his pulse by praying to God, or by will 
power, or he might be wearing a band round his upper arm in similar fashion 
to having his blood pressure tested.

You and I think that #3 is the most likely explanation, and it would 
certainly work, and is in accordance with all the evidence, but it still 
doesn't prove it.