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

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.

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

Evolution is false.

OK...how about this...

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.

But inside evolutionist land:
"Falsability" is the major criterion of their own special "scientific
method".
Evolution as an origin of species fails even the evolutionist's own very low
standard.

"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.

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.

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."

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

- 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.

Is Jay Gould peer reviewed?

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.

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.

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

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

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
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.

Study up, Robby.

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.

Darwin's followers made up their own "scientific method" which cased them to
engage in the worst kind of racism based on scientifically unsound ideas.

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 has no theory, only a hypothesis that is experimentally demontrable
and repeatable can be scientific theory. Darwin's origin of species was
bull**** from the get go, but now we can know it is false. (geological
evidence)

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.

Natural selection leading to species is bull****, false, not true.

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.

And here we are full circle to "the dog breeder's science".

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

Darwin's origin of species was bull**** from the get go,
but now we can know it is false. (geological evidence)

Ahh yes...full circle...un-cited, non-specific, shadowy not for
attribution geological evidence...OK.

I await the publication of your proof.

Natural selection leading to species is bull****, false, not true.

Clearly you are the embodiment of "don't confuse me with the facts, my
mind is made up."

Have a nice day...