~ Bush: "I'm God's Delivery Boy" ~

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

Gould's attempts to band aid together a plausable mechanism to replace
Darwin's impossible one is what was hillarious.

Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" at 1474 pages, some
band-aid.

Once the period becomes short enough it is Creation.

This is too funny. How short is this period? And when did creation
occur?

[snip the short strokes of punctuated equilibrium]

Nice band aids, but evolution becomes creation when explaining the fosil
record that way.

Quoi? JT are you trying to tell us you believe in "creation science?"

A simple Yes or No will do.

Even in the evolutionist's odd world where the scientific method
has a different definition than all of the rest of science,
the criterion of "falsability" is demonstrated in that
Darwin's idea is undoubtably false.

JT evolution is a fact...we see evidence all around us every day. The
specific mechanisms of natural selection and evolution are debated all
the time.

My assertion is a concept directly from Freudian psycology and is science,
not religion.

OK...Frued.

Again please clarify for me, are you implying you believe the
so-called "creation science?" An answer would go a long way in
understanding your posts.

Juvat

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

Gould's attempts to band aid together a plausable mechanism to replace
Darwin's impossible one is what was hillarious.

Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" at 1474 pages, some
band-aid.

The notional hypothesis of evolution as an origin of species has been
hemmorraging severely since about 1930. The band aid failed.

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

The notional hypothesis of evolution as an origin of species has been
hemmorraging severely since about 1930. The band aid failed.

IOW you are a believer of creation science...OK

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

The notional hypothesis of evolution as an origin of species has been
hemmorraging severely since about 1930. The band aid failed.

IOW you are a believer of creation science...OK

If you buy into Jay Gould's band aid and go with the physical geological
evidence, you are a Creationist too. The only question beomes one of a
causal observer, or probabilistic chance. (as delta T becomes small)

If you are a believer in Darwin's notional hypotehsis of origin of species,
you are in complete denial. It is false and has caused more death and
destruction than any other religion.

From the founder of Planned Parenthood:

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
Margaret Sanger
--

"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder
of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace")

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

If you buy into Jay Gould's band aid and go with the physical geological
evidence, you are a Creationist too.

JT you're a hoot...evolution is NOT creation. Exactly where in ANY
body of scientific work has ANY peer reviewed scientific study/tract
made such a claim?

What is the specific physical geological evidence you keep posting?
Specific! Not just you're claim, cite your evidence...or not as you
are wont to do. You sound like Joe McCarthy, "I have in my possession
a list of..." but he never produced the list for review.

Point me toward ANY article published in a scientific magazine
(Nature, Scientific American, Discovery, Playboy, Penthouse...) in the
last year or two (or ten) that has "debunked" evolution...JUST ONE!

The only question beomes one of a causal observer,
or probabilistic chance. (as delta T becomes small).

Now you're just being silly again,

If you are a believer in Darwin's notional hypotehsis of origin of species,
you are in complete denial. It is false and has caused more death and
destruction than any other religion.

Quoting from Richard Dawkins on the BBC site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwi...st/dawkins.htm

It was Charles Darwin (Erasmus's grandson) who, spurred into print by
Alfred Russel Wallace's independent discovery of his principle of
natural selection, finally established the theory of evolution by the
publication, in 1859, of the famous book whose title is usually
abbreviated to the Origin of Species.

We should distinguish two quite distinct parts of Darwin's
contribution. He amassed an overwhelming quantity of evidence for the
fact that evolution has occurred, and, together with Wallace
(independently) he thought up the only known workable theory of the
reason why it leads to adaptive improvement – natural selection.

In general the evidence for the fact that evolution has occurred
consists of an enormous number of detailed observations which all make
sense if we assume the theory of evolution, but which can be explained
by the creation theory only if we assume that the creator elaborately
set out to deceive us. Modern molecular evidence has boosted the
evidence for evolution beyond Darwin's wildest dreams, and the FACT OF
EVOLUTION IS NOW AS SECURELY ATTESTED AS ANY IN SCIENCE.

JT evolution is a fact, the mechanisms of evolution are debated,
refined as new evidence is understood...peer reviewed research...open
for scrutiny.

I'm not denying anything...evolution works!

From the founder of Planned Parenthood:

Uhhh, OK...got no friggin' clue what it is you're trying to say.

Sorry if you feel defensive about declaring your fundamentalist
christian outlook (by choosing to make bogus claims of geological
evidence and quoting Margaret Sanger)

Juvat

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

If you buy into Jay Gould's band aid and go with the physical geological
evidence, you are a Creationist too.

JT you're a hoot...evolution is NOT creation. Exactly where in ANY
body of scientific work has ANY peer reviewed scientific study/tract
made such a claim?

Evolution is false.

What Jay Gould did is move Darwin's fairy tale a long way toward being
Creation, in order to reconsile evolution with hard physical geological
evidence that it is false.

snip of peer review childishness

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

Evolution is false.

OK...how about this...

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is
all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.
Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The
ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual
organisms do not evolve.

The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those
that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it
embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different
alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to
the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to
snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

What Jay Gould did is move Darwin's fairy tale a long way toward being
Creation, in order to reconsile evolution with hard physical geological
evidence that it is false.

Darwin's evidence, Gregor Mendel's genetic research...fairy tales..OK,
unspecified physical evidence you cannot site is proof...OK

snip of peer review childishness

Peer review is childish? If peer review is childish how were
Einstein's relativity and Quantum physics verified? I guess cold
fussion works in your world.

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