Um … is that that new thing called sarcasm? I mean, I didn’t see a :rolleyes: in your post, so I just wanna be sure.
As much as I am astounded by the knowledge of my fellow Dopers, I feel you guys are wasting your time. This person is Phaedrus without the charm or the command of the Queen’s English.
Then how’d he get his doctorate ?
-Quote from “The Evolution Cruncher” by Vance Ferrel; at Creation Science Evangelism Ministry site.
Strangely, I couldn’t find a James Jenson associated with Brigham Young. Maybe it’s a typo ?
What do you mean? All the bits expunged by the moderators contained excellent English. I smell a conspiracy.
Funny…that’s almost exactly what James Jensen said on page one of this thread.
Actually, I often wondered about that. One would expect women to have been made out of some part of the body which has a more obvious symbolic value.
Perhaps it’s related to others meanings of the word “rib” in Hebrew, or some kind of pun (there are some in the bible). Does someone know?
Nope. God created the diseases like everything else and they were particulary useful to punish sinners and unbelievers. He’s very pissed at us for trying to cure them, so he has created antibiotic-resistant bacterias.
In a nutshell, it does, in fact, seem to be a Sumerian pun which lost something in the translation (I’m hoping this suggestion will not raise the ire of our new creationist friend).
Ach, the nitpicking gene, the useless appendix of poetic thought.
I know lifeforms are “perfect” at each stage of evolution, but I find the overall struggle from unicellular to reptile to mammal to primate to hominid to homo sapiens to be somewhat more noble and more deserving of appreciation than God saying “I’m bored, so up and Adam.”
And don’t bother nitpicking my little evolutionary sequence, puh-leeze. I’m being poetic again.
[nitpick]Is that correct? - I would have thought ‘most adequate’ would be closer…[/nitpick]
I shall concentrate on developing a mental shield against such attacks; one I will pass on to my children, sir.
—I’m being poetic again.—
Poetry can be just as lousy as sloppy thinking, especially when it’s based on sloppy thinking
If I read this correctly, a Mormon has (implicitly) criticized the profit motive.
HAS HELL FROZEN OVER?!?
You Lamarckian, you. 
You can take this with a huge pillar of salt, but I had a friend who swore that “rib” isn’t how the Talmud(Bereishith) translates and Eve was made [sub]um[/sub] from Adam’s [sub]foreskin[/sub].
Any Talmudic scholars dredging this thread today? A google search about this weird idea produced nothing but plenty of sites which would’ve been likely to mention it.
AmbushBug
[sub]I almost used the “spoiler” tag but I figured the book referenced is probably old enough :D[/sub]
I was going to post some salient points to add to the colossal weight of info against the OP, but I need to study The Origin Of Species for Evolution Church, and make my nightly prayers to Darwin.
Our Darwin, who art in the grave, hallowed be thy name.
Thy theory come. Thy process be active in present, as it was in past,
Give us this day our daily genetic drift.
And forgive us our mutations, as we forgive our mutagens,
And lead us not into inheritance of acquired traits,
But deliver us from “Intelligent Design”.
For thine is the fact, the process, and the theory, for ever and ever, A Man.
When I saw this thread title, I thought perhaps we’d see some intelligent objections to evolution, not the garbage I see in talk.origins. Alas, the same old trolling I’ve seen for decades.
Interesting to analyze "JJ"s argument though. First, he demands repeatable scientific evidence, the kind only obtainable through laboratory experiments. When presented, he rejects it because people were involved. (I suppose JJ does not consider seismology a science either, since it is hard to reproduce an earthquake.)
Second, he gets slapped on the wrist for posting copyrighted stuff. Notice how immediately afterwards he starts to demand that we post copyrighted stuff, not links?
My observation is that creationists are one of four things - ignorant, stupid, liars or fanatics. The ignorant are the good ones. Perhaps all they know about evolution is from church bulletins. When they are shown the evidence, they read, and at least agree to look at it. The stupid never quite get why there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
It is hard to tell the fanatics from the liars. These are the ones who close their eyes and refuse to even look at the evidence because it might change their worldview. It is hard to tell the difference between those who are truthfully fanatical and those who must know the truth but refuse to acknowledge it because they would lose their lecture and ICR jobs.
So, JJ, which are you?
What was your expectation James? That you were going to come here and be some kind of rhetorical creationist superhero with intricate, dazzling arguments that no one has seen before? It always ends this way in these threads when horseplay turns to tears with creationists defensive, baffled and confused after their straw men get burned and asses blistered by the rhetorical paddling of their lives.
Doesn’t the majesty of God’s universe allow for a more complete and complex description of the process of life than what we imagined 2000 years ago? The nature of the world is inherently atomistic James, why can’t God be powerful enough to handle the little complicated stuff also? Why do you have to make him this ham handed omnipotent muppet that can only handle things will blunt conceptual mittens. Give him a little credit, don’t hamstring God with the limits of your imagination.
I contacted the only Jamese Jensen I could find on BYU faculty. He’s in microbiology and here is what he had to say in regards to the “other” James Jensen in paleontology:
Seems our James Jensen is yet a third James Jensen. So many JJs, so little time.
:applauds:
Nice work, JS. Cecil would be proud. Thanks.