After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

You are completely missing the point here, Robey.

The scientific method everywhere except evolutionists is:
That which is "experimentally demonstrable and repeatable" is a theory.

So please tell us what experiements Einstein conducted to explain his
theory of quantum physics? None...nothing in the lab, it was all brain
power. Yet Einstein's work was scientific in 1905.

Darwin could NOT provide traditional scientific proof. He never
claimed he could, but he did assemble considerable nay overwhelming
circumstantial evidence for evolution. You will not see evolution in a
single creature...but you will see it between successive generations.

From the end of his Beagle voyage, Darwin spent six years working on
his theory before his first draft and a total of 22 years elapsed
before Darwin even published ANYTHING about evolution. In 1858 he read
Alfred Russel Wallace's own work on natural selection and finally
published his"On the Origin of Species."

Darwin wrote to persuade scientists and educated folks that evolution
was a BETTER explanation of the origin of a species than creationism.
To wit, natural selection was the plausible explanation. The book was
a direct assault on the Genesis myth.

Evolution as an origin of species fails even the evolutionist's own very low
standard.

Man oh man, don't know where you come up with that. Evolution is
change...as permutation and combinations of alleles occur species
evolve. The Westminster Dog show is proof species evolve.

In fact, geological evidence proves in a hard physical way that if evolution
occurs at all it must do so in a single generation. Or more logically, an
already existing species replaces the previous dominant species in a
locality.

You sound like an adherent of Georges Cuvier or perhaps Charles Lyell
uniformitarianism. Which is it, evolution is false or it occurs due to
geological/geographic isolation. I guess the notion that successive
generations of folks in our country are getting taller (median height)
is coincidence or creation.

Darwin's view of natural selection (new species evolving through
chance variation and a struggle to survive) suggested that if nature
was a reflection of its creator, then that creator was NOT just or
loving.

According to Edward J Larson BA Williams College, JD Harvard, MA & PhD
U of WI (Professor of History, Professor of Law U of GA) by 1875
virtually all biologists in Europe and America adopted evolutionary
views of origins. BTW I encourage you to listen/watch his course, "The
Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy" available here
http://www.teach12.com/store/courseI...f+Controversy+

Natural selection is a valid theory, but evolution as an origin of species
is a leap of faith.

Uhh, not to scientists it isn't.

Is Jay Gould peer reviewed?

****ing A bubba...Richard Dawkins is famous for his heated arguments
with Gould in PUBLIC. Man JT, there is debate about the mechanisms (eg
geographic isolation, genentic mutation, artificial selection etc) of
evolution all the time.

Evolution science doesn't run away from criticism.

Then you can know for a fact that it takes a 1300 page band aid with very
major changes in the process leading to a new species to prevent evolution
as an origin of species from being demonstrably false.

Gould was nothing if not a prolific writer, lots of artwork, lots of
rational thought, vice your non-specific claim "geological evidence
proves in a hard physical way..." You are fuzzy with the details or
citation of your proof... and that's OK too.

Come on JT...just cite some bible passage as your proof that evolution
does not occur and be done with it.

You have been blown out here Robey, but thanks for playing.

JT, don't hurt yuorself as you try to pat you own back. I havn't even
broken a sweat refuting your strawman argument. You posit that natural
selection is a valid theory, and yet fail to grasp the BASIC notion
that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is
change, natural selection is a mechanism of change, ergo natural
selection is a mechanism of evolution.

Religion and the "free exercise thereof" is essential to a mentally balanced
society.

From a PBS program, Closer to Truth: Will Technology Topple
Religion... http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotrut...e/show_14.html

Donald E. Miller [Ph.D, is a professor of religion and a social
scientist] stated...
"Well actually there are even more people going to church, temple or
synagogue now [2004] than in the early years of this republic. We tend
to romanticize the past and think, oh, back then people were so much
more religious. But as a matter of fact we are probably, as measured
by church attendance, three times more religious now, with about 40
percent of the population in a typical week attending a church,
temple, or synagogue than if we go back 200 years."

To which Michael Shermer [ Ph.D, is the founding publisher of Skeptic
magazine and the director of the Skeptics Society] astutely
observed...
"…this is very interesting, conservative pundits argue that America is
going to hell in a hand basket and we are…less moral than we've ever
been, and we have to get America back to the Christian nation it used
to be. They have it bass-ackwards, we've never been so religious, and
if that's the case, is there some correlation between us being so
religious and America going to hell in a hand basket?"

I'd guess our european friends would say Shermer is correct.

Juvat