Evolutionary news

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 2:27 pm

Arch
you are a man desperately in need of spelling lessons

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Arch
I have to quote you again ont the survey minimalist mentionned

you notice they don't name what churches these leaders belong to. so i am betting they manipulated the results by sending these surveys to non-evangelical, non-fundamentalist church leaders.
unquote
If I understand you correctly the surveys asking if people believe in creation should only be sent to evangelical ,fundamentalist churchleaders only .No wonder you should claim a vast majority in favour of your views .Bu what a strange way to obtain it .

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:20 pm

Rene, I have no doubt that the survey over here was accurate. We've even got one of those nuts in the White House.

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:28 pm

Again for Arch
How come the iguanodons of Bernissart were discovered in a layer of coal some-330m below the surface of the earth ?
http://www.naturalsciences.be/museum/halls/dinos/

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:30 pm

Of the 103 church leaders who took part in the survey - including Church of England and Catholic bishops and Methodist ministers - only three said they believed in the literal, Biblical, version of the Creation in which God created the world in six days.

right there that tells me that they weren't including too many church leaders that belong to those groups that do believe in a literal Biblical creation.

If I understand you correctly the surveys asking if people believe in creation should only be sent to evangelical ,fundamentalist churchleaders only

i wouldn't read into or assume anything concerning i write. if you don't understand something just ask instead of manipulating my words.

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:31 pm

Min says :Rene, I have no doubt that the survey over here was accurate. We've even got one of those nuts in the White House unquote

That explains why he was votedi nto office by a minority of the american voters.You guys have a strange electorate system .The bible belt has more votes due to the disproportionate representation of smaller stes .

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:45 pm

That explains why he was votedi nto office by a minority of the american voters.You guys have a strange electorate system

rene, the fundamentalists do not have that many votes in america and they may claim they got bush in but the real story lies deeper than that.

there were too many players in that game to lay the blame solely on Christians.

bush has clay feet, which if you read the book of daniel you will notice that the statue described there also has clay feet. making america the last empire to come.

i for one did not want bush in the white house.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:33 pm

Arch is partly correct, Rene.

Look at this chart, which was intended as a wry commentary and ends up being stark reality.

The problem is not that the Fundys have more votes, it is that they tend to be more widespread and they do vote as a block. Because of the electoral college system a candidate....let's make up a name...Al Gore...can get more votes by cleaning up in the more populous states on the coasts but loses the election because of the electoral vote system. No matter how wide the margin of victory in the populous states the winner of that state only gets the apportioned number of electoral votes.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:31 pm

let's make up a name...Al Gore

real subtle.

you know, there was a time when Canada was thinking of throwing a fence around America and calling it a national park.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:48 pm

Subtlety costs extra.

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:04 am

I reaaly strayed off- topic here,and I apologize ,the only excuse I have that you guys elect the self proclaimed president of the world and we don't have a vote .Frustrating .And sorry Arch I am not blaming you for any of this ,I think I correctly understood your likes and dislikes .I would never speculate or extrapolate anybody's opinions .Now let's move to the topic again .

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:15 am

Oh Arch !
But I really would like an answer to my question about the fossils of the iguanodons ffound 320 m below the surface of the earth ,amongst other fossils of crocodiles,turtles,etc .I can give you an explanation ,but I'll have to read yours first .

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 am

about the fossils of the iguanodons ffound 320 m below the surface of the earth

first off, it doesn't say they were found at that level of depth, onlythat the mine shaft was that deep.

Thirty almost complete skeletons of a new dinosaur species were found in 1878 in a coal mine at Bernissart

and a model of the 322 metre deep mine shaft, where the iguanodons have been found.

so the depth has no validity here, and as you cansay they were found in a coal mine which means they could have been found anywhere on that property.

put aside the games and be honest with yourself for once. but again, there are many reasons why they would be together but somethng tells me you are holding somehting backhere so i willwait for more information before saying anything else.

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:29 am

Arch do not assume ,just give me a logical explanation not in agreement with evolutionary theories how these fossils can have been found 320m deep in a coalmine shaft in Bernissart .They were found in situ .No need to define a shaft or a mining gallery .

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:01 am

Arch do not assume ,

i am not the one assuming. there is no indication these bones were found at the depth you say but your insistance shows that you will stoop to any level to prove your theory.