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

"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.

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

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...

"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.

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