If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Robey Price" wrote in message ... After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver Engineering" confessed the following: Failure to observe any religion leads directly to human psycosis and is detrimental to society as a whole. Well...guys like Feynman, Sagan, Einstein, et al would smile and suggest that religion might actually be a contributor to that psycosis. Einstein's black box radiation work led directly to the discreditation of evolution which continues today through DNA. The evolutionist was confronted with "Jew science" by 1930 demonstrating a vacuum fluctuation quite nicely. Attempting to use 20th century science to validate 19th century "dog breeder science" can only demonstrate a paradox when taken to it's conclusion. Perhaps this is more along the lines of your line of : 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 The Marching Morons C.M. Kornbluth, 1951 -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"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". |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Robey Price" wrote in message ... 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. Why did you suppose Jay Gould created his 1300 page band aid? 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." Jay Gould's 1300 page band aid is an admission that Darwin's origin of species through evolution does not happen. The hard physical geological evidence discredited Darwin's fairy tale long before Gould attempted to reconcile the two. By the 1930s quantum physics had proven that a vacuum fluctuation might very well be Creation, from a human perspective. Cosmology has tabbed on to some quantum origin of the universe, as there are big problems with the big bang. Hubble has provided photographic evidence that the genesis of the universe is an ongoing process. So onward marches the Church of Darwin, in denile over all of science having moved on from their dog breeder science. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following: Why did you suppose Jay Gould created his 1300 page band aid? Asked and answered...Gould was a prolific writer, he was trying to educate and entertain that is why one particular work was 1474 pages long. Why is Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" 1100+ pages long? Answer: 200 pages was insufficient. Jay Gould's 1300 page band aid is an admission that Darwin's origin of species through evolution does not happen. Really? I missed that in the preface, I'll go back to the library and look for that admission. Guess the book could have been a magazine article then. The hard physical geological evidence discredited Darwin's fairy tale... JT, sincerely I have no opposition to looking at the evidence you keep referencing. For all I know you could be using the biblical flood myth as your cite. Honest, cite for me...let me be the skeptic to your claim. And just so you understand, I have ZERO problem with your skepticism (denial) of biological evolution, I'm simply trying to get you to cough up your evidence. For me (and biologists, paleontologists, geologists etc) evolution and natural selection offer the BEST, most logical explanation, based upon the evidence gathered thus far. By the 1930s quantum physics had proven that a vacuum fluctuation might very well be Creation, from a human perspective. This is an interesting statement. If not from human perspective (we are human afterall) what other perspective would you reference (in realtivistic terms)...I'm currently watching the relativity/quantum physics lectures by Richard Wolfson PhD. Cosmology has tabbed on to some quantum origin of the universe, as there are big problems with the big bang. Hubble has provided photographic evidence that the genesis of the universe is an ongoing process. Considering the time it has taken the light to reach the Hubble telescope, the redshift currently noted (expansion) can be in the past or the "elsewhere". The universe could be contracting at the edges by now, but our sun will have gone supernova (more than likely) by the time the light (evidence) reaches our part of the galaxy. Of course Prof Wolfson could be fabricating that. So onward marches the Church of Darwin, in denile over all of science having moved on from their dog breeder science. Sorry JT, it would appear that ALL OF SCIENCE has not gotten the memo that Darwin's theory has been disproven (and replaced by a BETTER model). It all goes to a lack of supporting evidence, to say nothing of some ulterior motive you seem to be placing on proponents of evolution. Why would a "darwinian evolutionist" (as a label for discussion) object to adopting a better explanation? There is no reward to clinging to a disproven theory. That is illogical. Bottom line...I have nothing further to dispute your claims of geological evidence. Nor do I understand how you have mentioned spurts (for lack of better word) of biological change (which incidently sounds a great deal like Gould's notion of Punctuated Equilibrium) and said that natural selection is viable, but say evolution does not occur. I finally figured out your reference to Sanger had something to do with social Darwinism and eugenics. Allow me to point out that the abuse/application of science does not nullify the science. IOW, Nazi claims about dirty jews and arayan superiority or KKK attitudes toward blacks does not nullify evolution. Juvat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
"W" is JFK's son and Bush revenge killed Kennedy in 1963 | Ross C. Bubba Nicholson | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 28th 04 11:30 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |