| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZilentNoise" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2007 08:51:26 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
When a special centennial edition of Darwins Origin of Species was
to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write
its introduction. In it he said: As we know, there is a great
divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of
evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of
the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 11:31:49 PM |
|
|
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:f59tjn$e6f$1@news.albasani.net...
"Mennia" JABRIOL <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:YTNdi.4516$%t6.1457@trnddc02...
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CsNdi.4513$%t6.98@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation
for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
No one, Jabriol. You know that. The laws just are. No god need apply.
Can you describe the universal 4 constants of the universe?
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Jehovah?
Many, Moe, Jack and a flat tire.
Here, Jabriol, oh Watchtower non-scientist. How would
you like to put the following into plain English?
http://wildcard.ph.utexas.edu/~sudarshan/pub/1967_011.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_physical_constant
http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1249
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 10:12:56 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:05:44 GMT, Mennia <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CsNdi.4513$%t6.98@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
No one, Jabriol. You know that. The laws just are. No god need apply.
Can you describe the universal 4 constants of the universe?
You're going down, Jabbers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 02:31:28 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:5isf73hh433uvfih9e2ltvual5d9skofuu@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:05:44 GMT, Mennia <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"DärFläken" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CsNdi.4513$%t6.98@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation
for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
No one, Jabriol. You know that. The laws just are. No god need apply.
Can you describe the universal 4 constants of the universe?
You're going down, Jabbers.
Going down? He's as low as any individual can go. Lower than whale crap.
We're talking rock bottom here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 02:19:39 PM |
|
|
"DärFläken" JABRIOL <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:CsNdi.4513$%t6.98@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
The jehovahs witlesses........... your point?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
19 Jun 2007 11:40:47 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:36:34 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:41:56 +0000, DärFläken wrote:
MarkA wrote:
We are living in a gigantic laboratory, that has been in operation for
billions of years.
Ran by who?
The laws of physics.
Laws established by who?
Good question. Perhaps if we keep working at it, we may learn something.
Or, we could just say "<Insert Name Here> made it", and pretend
that we have answered the question.
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
16 Jun 2007 07:46:27 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:51:47 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
That last sentence is obviously wrong. The human eye has less acuity than
that of a hawk. Does that make our eyes useless? You cannot imagine how
the ability to detect light could be useful?
Thanks for proving the colossal fallacy in the Evolution Delusion, which is
all about how you can and cannot _imagine_ what happened.
Umm... no, that's not what evolution is all about, but thanks for playing.
Unless firmly replicated many times over in a lab how an eye came about
,then case closed.
Unnecessary. You really should learn some science.
--
āSome assholes.ā - J.J. Hitt
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
18 Jun 2007 08:47:13 PM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:3m2dk4-ama.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:51:47 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
That last sentence is obviously wrong. The human eye has less acuity than
that of a hawk. Does that make our eyes useless? You cannot imagine how
the ability to detect light could be useful?
Thanks for proving the colossal fallacy in the Evolution Delusion, which is
all about how you can and cannot _imagine_ what happened.
Umm... no, that's not what evolution is all about, but thanks for playing.
Unless firmly replicated many times over in a lab how an eye came about
,then case closed.
Unnecessary. You really should learn some science.
Sure just smoke something and fill up the gaps=)
S
--
'Some assholes.' - J.J. Hitt
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
22 Jun 2007 07:15:03 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:51:47 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
That last sentence is obviously wrong. The human eye has less acuity than
that of a hawk. Does that make our eyes useless? You cannot imagine how
the ability to detect light could be useful?
Thanks for proving the colossal fallacy in the Evolution Delusion, which is
all about how you can and cannot _imagine_ what happened.
Umm... no, he's asking _you_ whether you are incapable of imagining
something. Since you are eminently *not* an evolutionary biologist, your
ability or inability to do so demonstrates only your own personal
limitations.
--
Much rather be a smart sheep than a dumb *****! - Jim Murray
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 09:56:33 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> skrev i melding news:pan.2007.06.15.12.10.39.107724@nowhere.com...
blabbed
On the contrary,
since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is
even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The
eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have
done better.
Could that have anything to do with the fact that there have not been
trillions and trillions of telescope makers, refining trillions and
trillions of telescopes, over hundreds of millions of years?
So what you're actually saying here, is that one has to have 1) something to be deliberately
and intentionally refined to end up that complex. 2) intelligent being(s) has to do this? Or what
should we draw kindof a conclusion, help us understand please.
Saba
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: TOBS: bones bones every where; musuem acknowledge |
15 Jun 2007 10:29:38 AM |
|
|
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind. But the Bulletin of Chicagos
Field Museum of Natural History commented: Darwins theory of
[evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part
of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian
interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not
strictly true
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: bones bones every where; musuem acknowledge |
18 Jun 2007 04:36:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:29:38 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: bones bones every where; musuem acknowledge |
18 Jun 2007 08:54:19 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.18.21.36.37.201678@nowhere.com...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:29:38 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
The fundies won't accept this. Every time a new
fossil is found showing how one form evolved
over time to another, they demand another one
in between. They will never be satisfied. It's a
stupid demand, but they seem to think it
means something.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E4rFl=E4ken?=" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: bones bones every where; musuem acknowledge |
18 Jun 2007 06:41:13 PM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:29:38 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
Yeah And I solar system is full with interdemensional life forms.
Sliders is truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: bones bones every where; musuem acknowledge |
19 Jun 2007 02:18:03 PM |
|
|
"DärFläken" JABRIOL <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:tKEdi.4472$%t6.3377@trnddc02...
MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:29:38 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
Yeah And I solar system is full with interdemensional life forms. Sliders
is truth.
your point is?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: bones bones every where; musuem acknowledge |
22 Jun 2007 07:30:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:36:38 -0400, MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:29:38 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
Well, yes and no.
There are plenty of observed instances of speciation, for example, even
jumps to different families. Thus whatever "kind" is must be higher up
the taxonomic tree than family - order, suborder, etc. Of course, this
puts humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans into the same "kind".
Since it is presumably the case that the creationists would not regard
humans and chimps as the same "kind", they must be using some other
organizational system.
Given that this is so, we cannot actually say whether there has ever been
a case of "one kind" evolving into "another kind", unless we have a usable
definition of "kind" - something the creationists have never bothered to
provide.
So technically, he could be correct; there may never have been an
evolution from "one kind" to "another kind". Even if correct, however, it
is meaningless until "kind" is defined; it's about like saying there's
never been evolution from "one goozer" to "another goozer"; technically
perhaps possibly true, but devoid of any actual meaning.
--
"One's faith is all the evidence he needs." - Ken Young (idiot)
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: bones bones every where; musuem acknowledge |
22 Jun 2007 08:41:41 PM |
|
|
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:36:38 -0400, MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:29:38 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed
by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact,
surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of
living thing evolving into another kind.
There are many such examples.
Well, yes and no.
There are plenty of observed instances of speciation, for example, even
jumps to different families. Thus whatever "kind" is must be higher up
the taxonomic tree than family - order, suborder, etc. Of course, this
puts humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans into the same "kind".
excellent, bring on the manpanzee... That would stop illegal immigration
in its tracks.
Since it is presumably the case that the creationists would not regard
humans and chimps as the same "kind", they must be using some other
organizational system.
I'm not a creationist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?B?RMOkckZsw6RrZW4=?=" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: bones bones every where; musuem acknowledge |
22 Jun 2007 09:46:40 PM |
|
|
"ZilentKnight" <ZilentKnight@marionettespieger.net> wrote in message
news:pT_ei.2299$xy.458@trnddc06...
I'm not a creationist.
Then why do you keep quoting creationists and copy and pasting nonsense from
anti-evolution websites? Are you going to tell us you believe the earth was
seeded from outer space by little green men?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
18 Jun 2007 04:34:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:56:33 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> skrev i melding news:pan.2007.06.15.12.10.39.107724@nowhere.com...
blabbed
On the contrary,
since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is
even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The
eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have
done better.
Could that have anything to do with the fact that there have not been
trillions and trillions of telescope makers, refining trillions and
trillions of telescopes, over hundreds of millions of years?
So what you're actually saying here, is that one has to have 1) something to be deliberately
and intentionally refined to end up that complex. 2) intelligent being(s) has to do this? Or what
should we draw kindof a conclusion, help us understand please.
Saba
What I'm saying is that the creationist argument is flawed at many levels.
One such level is the idea that there is some magic necessary for natural
selection, which gets untold trillions and trillions of trials over
hundreds of billions of years, to produce something that humans can't
produce in a few decades of work by a handful of people.
--
MarkA
(Still trying to come up with a clever sig line)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 02:05:41 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.15.12.10.39.107724@nowhere.com...
Hearing ***** like this makes me wonder if maybe your brain isn't an
example of failed design.
Because you're hearing it from a devout creationist Jehovah's Witness known
as jabriol who posts with new nyms daily. Most of what he posts is from the
absurd nonsensical Watchtower literature. The writers do all their research
on anti-evolution websites and their own past literature. They're world
famous for taking things out of context and using out of date information.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 08:50:34 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:11:32 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all
parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or
thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all
the individual parts were completed.
That last sentence is obviously wrong. The human eye has less acuity than
that of a hawk. Does that make our eyes useless?
Read the last sentence again. your reply in is Non sequitur .
===snip the rest=== you screwed up with your first reply....the others
are messed up as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
15 Jun 2007 08:36:58 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:KOwci.7$AR5.3@trnddc06...
Looks like you missed this one Jabbers. No comment now that you were
*again* caught lying?
"Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1181937901.708481.306710@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On 15 Jun, 02:11, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> aka JW
Creationist Jabriol's lie-a-thon continued:
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To
suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems,
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." More than a century has
passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary,
since Darwin's time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is
even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: "The
eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have
done better.
Oh, no! Darwin admits that the structure of the human eye invalidates
his theory and abandons it!
Once again the Creation book is caught out in a lie. Actual quote in
context:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense
of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox
populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in
science.
Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and
imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each
grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if
further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful
to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty
of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
considered as subversive of the theory."
- The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859, p 133.
Darwin does not say the eye could not have evolved, he says he can
understand that people might have trouble accepting that it did. The
evidence suggests that eyes evolved several times independently.
Apparently they're easy.
Read it and weep, JW's, this is the Watchtower Society at its finest,
lying as hard as it can. How can this be the One True Religion if it
can't tell the truth?
Andy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin acknowledge problem with TOE, follow up by Jastrow |
14 Jun 2007 08:57:30 PM |
|
|
ZilentNoise:
Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are
staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate
man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all
parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or
thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all
the individual parts were completed.
No, they wouldn't.
You can find examples of eyes missing one or more of just
about any component you care to mention scattered about
the animal kingdom. There are eyes without corneas,
eyes without pupils, eyes with pupils but not adjustable pupils,
eyes without lenses, eyes with lenses which cannot be
adjusted. Cube jellyfish have both simple eyes and quite
complex eyes, including adjustable pupils -- and nothing
remotely like a brain to hook all these eyes to.
And looking at it from another perspective,
some raptors would consider YOUR eyes to be vital missing parts,
because you have only one fovea, where theirs have two.
Some insects would consider your eyes deficient because
they do not respond to ultraviolet. And cephalapods would consider
your eyes badly designed because all the wiring runs in front
of the film, and not behind it, as it does in their eyes.
A simple spot of photosensitive pigment gives a survival
advantage to one-celled organisms which can use it to
detect the intensity of the light. If this simple
spot is sunk into a pit, the organism now has an
eye which can detect the direction of the light.
If the mouth of the pit shrinks down to a small
opening, the primitive eye now has some ability
to focus light. A layer of cells growing over
the opening can create a lens, allowing finer
focusing. You build on what came before; you don't
have to create the more complex types from scratch.
And as far as brains go, I think the answer there is
pretty obvious, given the increase in complexity
of brains found in simple invertebrates to those
found in reptiles to those found in mammals and
birds.
And that latter example, birds, shows just how
quite different structures can be used for the
same function. Birds do many of the same things
we do -- with brains whose structures are organized
QUITE differently.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Comments from Christopher Booker and Evolutionist Hitching was Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 07:34:52 PM |
|
|
"Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1181863674.223902.175810@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
And more of the same. By all means keep posting the evidence that
shows how dishonest the WTBTS can be. I'm sure you're driving more
people away every day.
Other JWs have told him he's driving people away. He threatens to have them
disfellowshipped and shunned for opposing him. He was reported to his
elders by several JWs from this NG and Jabbers lied to them, then he laughed
at what fools they were and how easily tricked they were. Most of those in
his congregation can't afford computers and many don't even speak English so
were easily conned by de Jabbers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 12:01:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:06:45 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: “As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
L.
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an “actual occurrence,”
a “reality,” a “truth,” as one dictionary defines the word “fact.” But
is it?
Yes.
To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has
been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is
a fact.
Wrong. The shape of the Earth is an eccentric oblate spheroid. We tend
to simplify things to make them easier to understand. The real world is
not so neat and tidy.
Next point: the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round.
Eratosthenes calculated the approximate circumference of the Earth with
surprising accuracy in 240 BC.
It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and
that the heavens revolved around the earth.
And it was the church that vigorously persecuted anyone who questioned
that view, even though the evidence clearly supported a heliocentric
system.
Now we know for sure that
the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact.
Again, that is only an approximation of the true state of affairs. The
Earth and Sun both orbit a barycenter. The Sun is also being tugged by
all the other planets in the solar system as well.
Many things that were once only debated theories have been established
by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground?
Definitely. The evidence that evolution has occurred has been mounting
steadily since the publication of Origin. No credible evidence exists to
contradict the theory.
Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species
was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter
of considerable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists.
As is the case for any scientific theory.
Today, that dispute is more intense than ever. And it is enlightening to
consider what advocates of evolution themselves are saying about the
matter.
The only ones who question the theory of evolution are those who are
unable to give up their cherished notion that some god is making it all
work.
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 04:30:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:06:45 GMT, ZilentNoise <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwins book The
Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory
have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top
evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.
And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution
themselves are saying about the matter.
How's about citing one of these disputes among top evolutionary scientists
today?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 04:25:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:06:45 GMT, ZilentNoise <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwins Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: As we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
L.
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an actual occurrence,
a reality, a truth, as one dictionary defines the word fact. But
is it?
To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has
been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is
a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for
sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a
fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been
established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwins book The
Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory
have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top
evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.
And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution
themselves are saying about the matter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 07:07:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:06:45 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$O15.3712@trnddc03...
When a special centennial edition of Darwinās Origin of Species was to
be published,
-- i.e. in *1959*. Nearly half a century ago. Jeeeezus, you people really
like *antiques*, don't you...?!? *LOL*!!!
W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction.
-- i.e. in *1959*.
In it he said: āAs we know, there is
-- i.e. as of *1959*.
a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes
of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
-- i.e. in *1959*.
because the evidence
-- available in 1959...
is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific
public to the disagreements about evolution.
You people really are *pathetic*...
L.
THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an
established fact. They believe that evolution is an āactual occurrence,ā
a āreality,ā a ātruth,ā as one dictionary defines the word āfact.ā But
is it?
To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has
been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is
a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for
sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a
fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been
established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwinās book The
Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory
have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top
evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.
And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution
themselves are saying about the matter.
"Today" being fifty years ago?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 02:24:01 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.07.03.100054@com.mkbilbo...
"Today" being fifty years ago?
The Watchtower writers are well known for using out of date and out of
context information. It was one of the first things I noticed when I got
involved with this cult years ago. Jabbers has nothing else to go
by..........
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 02:33:24 PM |
|
|
Kathy wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.07.03.100054@com.mkbilbo...
"Today" being fifty years ago?
The Watchtower writers are well known for using out of date and out of
context information. It was one of the first things I noticed when I
got involved with this cult years ago.
She supposedly hanged out with them for 20 yrs, waiting for armaggeddon
to pummel her first husband for beating the feces out of her. She got
disappointed and frustrated.
If she really knew JW's she would know they are not creationists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 09:00:19 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:8QBci.407$Zh6.53@trnddc04...
Kathy wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.07.03.100054@com.mkbilbo...
"Today" being fifty years ago?
The Watchtower writers are well known for using out of date and out of
context information. It was one of the first things I noticed when I got
involved with this cult years ago.
She supposedly hanged out with them for 20 yrs, waiting for armaggeddon to
pummel her first husband for beating the feces out of her.
That was jabbers who beat the crap out of his wife.
She got disappointed and frustrated.
She did? Why didn't she call the police and have you arrested?
If she really knew JW's she would know they are not creationists.
They're not? The GB gave you new light? They finally gave up on Jehovah
and now believe in evolution? Since when? Do tell...........
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
