| 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 Darwin’s 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: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
19 Jun 2007 11:18:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:38:26 +0200, "~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> skrev i melding
news:o0n57352r9jfmun8esif8l3r4d8ogdo8gv@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:25:04 +0200, "~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no>
wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.00.06.419483@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:40:06 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.15.24.03.828826@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:22 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.08.54.423449@com.mkbilbo...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:26:55 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it?
Yes. And, by the way, you're an idiot.
Ahh, the idiot, moron "argument":) where do they pick up these people,
evolutionists are arrogant sacks of *****, but I guess that comes with organized
religious beliefs.
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
Sorry for the lack of applaus but the concensus builds on a predetermined
bag of beliefs called the evolutionary paradigm, which makes any type result
managable as long as it's interpreted within that paradigm's frame. It's psychology
first, then wishbeliefs, then science.
Yeah, uh huh, sure thing.
Living in the most advanced civilization in all of human history denying
that science works. Yeah, that's bright.
Newsflash: The scientific process isn't an automatical generator of inescapable logical
deductions, but an interpretative based paradigm-driven type of argumentation, based on a
certain mindset, both before, during and after the process of it.
Psychological brainwash is proven to "work", but that doesn't mean it's result are truth ey?
Saba
So the gist of your argument is that science refuses to accept "magic" as an
answer to how we got here?
Ben
The whole theory of evolution is quite magical in itself, if one rubs off the arrogant
layer of it being a 'proven fact'.. and whatever we don't understand right now about
the other alternative is magic only until we understand that. Both sides can be called
'magical', no difference, only evolutionists tries to cover up their holes and misses
while believers in intelligent creation only states that's what they assume because of
their observations.
Saba
Did you miss the part where it was pointed out that there is a tremendous amount
of evidence to show that life evolves on this planet but zero that God did it?
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
20 Jun 2007 09:14:05 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:38:26 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
The whole theory of evolution is quite magical in itself, if one rubs off the arrogant
layer of it being a 'proven fact'
Err... no. Evolution is fact. The theories of evolution (there are
several) are just that - theories. Do try to at least understand the
*simplest* aspects of it.
.. and whatever we don't understand
right now about the other alternative is magic only until we understand
that. Both sides can be called 'magical', no difference, only
evolutionists tries to cover up their holes and misses while believers
in intelligent creation only states that's what they assume because of
their observations.
Except the creationists have no viable, falsifiable mechanism of creation
against which to test the fossils and so forth, so they cannot claim any
evidence of it... whereas the predictions derived from evolution and
evolution theory _are_ consistent with what we find in the fossils and
elsewhere.
The creationists would do well to at least come up with a proper theory of
creation, before trying to tell us how their offering is better than ours.
--
We got you, Jesse. You belong to us now. - David Rice
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 11:29:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:25:04 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.00.06.419483@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:40:06 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.15.24.03.828826@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:22 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.08.54.423449@com.mkbilbo...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:26:55 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it?
Yes. And, by the way, you're an idiot.
Ahh, the idiot, moron "argument":) where do they pick up these people,
evolutionists are arrogant sacks of *****, but I guess that comes with organized
religious beliefs.
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
Sorry for the lack of applaus but the concensus builds on a predetermined
bag of beliefs called the evolutionary paradigm, which makes any type result
managable as long as it's interpreted within that paradigm's frame. It's psychology
first, then wishbeliefs, then science.
Yeah, uh huh, sure thing.
Living in the most advanced civilization in all of human history denying
that science works. Yeah, that's bright.
Newsflash: The scientific process isn't an automatical generator of inescapable logical
deductions, but an interpretative based paradigm-driven type of argumentation, based on a
certain mindset, both before, during and after the process of it.
Psychological brainwash is proven to "work", but that doesn't mean it's result are truth ey?
Postmodernist crap bores me silly.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 11:40:55 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.29.25.644236@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:25:04 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.00.06.419483@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:40:06 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.15.24.03.828826@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:22 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.08.54.423449@com.mkbilbo...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:26:55 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it?
Yes. And, by the way, you're an idiot.
Ahh, the idiot, moron "argument":) where do they pick up these people,
evolutionists are arrogant sacks of *****, but I guess that comes with organized
religious beliefs.
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
Sorry for the lack of applaus but the concensus builds on a predetermined
bag of beliefs called the evolutionary paradigm, which makes any type result
managable as long as it's interpreted within that paradigm's frame. It's psychology
first, then wishbeliefs, then science.
Yeah, uh huh, sure thing.
Living in the most advanced civilization in all of human history denying
that science works. Yeah, that's bright.
Newsflash: The scientific process isn't an automatical generator of inescapable logical
deductions, but an interpretative based paradigm-driven type of argumentation, based on a
certain mindset, both before, during and after the process of it.
Psychological brainwash is proven to "work", but that doesn't mean it's result are truth ey?
Postmodernist crap bores me silly.
Lack of arguments,huh?
S
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 07:57:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:40:55 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.29.25.644236@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:25:04 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.00.06.419483@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:40:06 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.15.24.03.828826@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:22 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.08.54.423449@com.mkbilbo...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:26:55 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it?
Yes. And, by the way, you're an idiot.
Ahh, the idiot, moron "argument":) where do they pick up these people,
evolutionists are arrogant sacks of *****, but I guess that comes with organized
religious beliefs.
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
Sorry for the lack of applaus but the concensus builds on a predetermined
bag of beliefs called the evolutionary paradigm, which makes any type result
managable as long as it's interpreted within that paradigm's frame. It's psychology
first, then wishbeliefs, then science.
Yeah, uh huh, sure thing.
Living in the most advanced civilization in all of human history denying
that science works. Yeah, that's bright.
Newsflash: The scientific process isn't an automatical generator of inescapable logical
deductions, but an interpretative based paradigm-driven type of argumentation, based on a
certain mindset, both before, during and after the process of it.
Psychological brainwash is proven to "work", but that doesn't mean it's result are truth ey?
Postmodernist crap bores me silly.
Lack of arguments,huh?
Apparently. But will you do anything about it?
By the way, this is really stupid:
"Psychological brainwash is proven to 'work', but that doesn't mean it's
result are truth ey?"
That doesn't *mean anything. Yes, if it works, it works. Do you think you
have a point here?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:26:36 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 7:57 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:40:55 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.29.25.644236@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:25:04 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.00.06.419483@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:40:06 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.15.24.03.828826@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:22 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.08.54.423449@com.mkbilbo...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:26:55 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it?
Yes. And, by the way, you're an idiot.
Ahh, the idiot, moron "argument":) where do they pick up these people,
evolutionists are arrogant sacks of *****, but I guess that comes with organized
religious beliefs.
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
Sorry for the lack of applaus but the concensus builds on a predetermined
bag of beliefs called the evolutionary paradigm, which makes any type result
managable as long as it's interpreted within that paradigm's frame. It's psychology
first, then wishbeliefs, then science.
Yeah, uh huh, sure thing.
Living in the most advanced civilization in all of human history denying
that science works. Yeah, that's bright.
Newsflash: The scientific process isn't an automatical generator of inescapable logical
deductions, but an interpretative based paradigm-driven type of argumentation, based on a
certain mindset, both before, during and after the process of it.
Psychological brainwash is proven to "work", but that doesn't mean it's result are truth ey?
Postmodernist crap bores me silly.
Lack of arguments,huh?
Apparently. But will you do anything about it?
By the way, this is really stupid:
"Psychological brainwash is proven to 'work', but that doesn't mean it's
result are truth ey?"
That doesn't *mean anything. Yes, if it works, it works. Do you think you
have a point here?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Do we really have to call each other names and label people to discuss
this? I thought only religions did this name calling? What is next,
tie the offending person with a different idea to a post, throw pitch
on him and set him afire? How about just stoning them to death?
Surely we can discuss this without name-calling. Even though I was
guilty of the same offense above. Evolution is a fact we can observe
everyday, and have since Darwin pointed it out. The only reason we
can argue is human evolution where things seem to have broken down.
That is what I was trying to discuss when "Mr. Smartypants" had to try
and embarress someone. He of course only embarressed himself. Let's
stay with the facts. Regards, K.W.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:51:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:26:36 -0700, khogantwo wrote:
On Jun 15, 7:57 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:40:55 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.29.25.644236@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:25:04 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.16.00.06.419483@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:40:06 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.15.15.24.03.828826@com.mkbilbo...
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:22 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.08.54.423449@com.mkbilbo...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:26:55 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it?
Yes. And, by the way, you're an idiot.
Ahh, the idiot, moron "argument":) where do they pick up these people,
evolutionists are arrogant sacks of *****, but I guess that comes with organized
religious beliefs.
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
Sorry for the lack of applaus but the concensus builds on a predetermined
bag of beliefs called the evolutionary paradigm, which makes any type result
managable as long as it's interpreted within that paradigm's frame. It's psychology
first, then wishbeliefs, then science.
Yeah, uh huh, sure thing.
Living in the most advanced civilization in all of human history denying
that science works. Yeah, that's bright.
Newsflash: The scientific process isn't an automatical generator of inescapable logical
deductions, but an interpretative based paradigm-driven type of argumentation, based on a
certain mindset, both before, during and after the process of it.
Psychological brainwash is proven to "work", but that doesn't mean it's result are truth ey?
Postmodernist crap bores me silly.
Lack of arguments,huh?
Apparently. But will you do anything about it?
By the way, this is really stupid:
"Psychological brainwash is proven to 'work', but that doesn't mean it's
result are truth ey?"
That doesn't *mean anything. Yes, if it works, it works. Do you think you
have a point here?
Do we really have to call each other names and label people to discuss
this? I thought only religions did this name calling? What is next,
tie the offending person with a different idea to a post, throw pitch
on him and set him afire? How about just stoning them to death?
Surely we can discuss this without name-calling. Even though I was
guilty of the same offense above. Evolution is a fact we can observe
everyday, and have since Darwin pointed it out. The only reason we
can argue is human evolution where things seem to have broken down.
That is what I was trying to discuss when "Mr. Smartypants" had to try
and embarress someone. He of course only embarressed himself. Let's
stay with the facts. Regards, K.W.
If he's going to troll alt.atheism, he deserves what he gets.
Particularly trolling with something so *stupid as denying the glaringly
obvious effectiveness of science while living in the most advanced human
civilization in history.
I'll put it this way.
Ages ago, it occurred to me that we--as a species--are barely keeping pace
as it is now. We're always on a knife's edge. Such as we've had two
serious panics over potential global epidemics. We *barely stay on top of
that issue as things stand. We're still not feeding everybody but we're
managing to keep from having most of the planet facing starvation despite
having almost *seven *billion of us mucking about now (which is, in
itself, something of an accomplishment even if we fail badly in some
areas, I mean, that's a *lot of people).
Simply put, we *cannot sustain a population of this size if the rug is
pulled out from under science. We can't. Period. It would mean people
would *die.
The people who bash science sitting in their comfy chairs, stuffing their
faces, in their climate controlled houses, typing on their high-speed
Internet connected computer are plotting what amounts to the mass murder
of most of the population of the planet.
And I'm dead serious about this.
The collapse of our high tech civilization would see how many dead?
Perhaps they want to take us back a century when the world had 1.6
billion? Kill five billion of us?
Assualts on science are nothing short of a desire to commit mass murder.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 07:38:43 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:25:04 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
Newsflash: The scientific process isn't an automatical generator of inescapable logical
deductions, but an interpretative based paradigm-driven type of argumentation, based on a
certain mindset, both before, during and after the process of it.
You forgot something; science requires testing of its theories before they
become accepted. This alone tends to weed out the crackpot nonsense such
as, oh, creationism.
--
Sure, in fact, I just rewired a stove. Ohm on the range. --- M.L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 11:18:49 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
But post a 50 yr old quote of a scientist who doesn't agree with TOE and
you lamblasted for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 11:33:18 AM |
|
|
In article <JZyci.86$Zh6.65@trnddc04>,
ZilentNoise <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
But post a 50 yr old quote of a scientist who doesn't agree with TOE and
you lamblasted for it.
The theory of evolution has itself evolved considerably in the last 50
years.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 11:28:52 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:49 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
But post a 50 yr old quote of a scientist who doesn't agree with TOE and
you lamblasted for it.
Dolt, quotes do not make science.
Period.
Sheesh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 02:03:17 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:49 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
But post a 50 yr old quote of a scientist who doesn't agree with TOE and
you lamblasted for it.
Dolt, quotes do not make science.
Period.
Sheesh.
oh that right even though it was a scientist who made the remark... like
Darwin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 07:54:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:03:17 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:49 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
But post a 50 yr old quote of a scientist who doesn't agree with TOE and
you lamblasted for it.
Dolt, quotes do not make science.
Period.
Sheesh.
oh that right even though it was a scientist who made the remark... like
Darwin.
Science is not done by throwing quotes at each other. Never has been.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:19:40 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 7:54 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:03:17 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:49 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
But post a 50 yr old quote of a scientist who doesn't agree with TOE and
you lamblasted for it.
Dolt, quotes do not make science.
Period.
Sheesh.
oh that right even though it was a scientist who made the remark... like
Darwin.
Science is not done by throwing quotes at each other. Never has been.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, that is true, but better quotes than rocks. K.W. P.S. Nobody
told me what a "Watchtower" was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 08:30:41 PM |
|
|
<khogantwo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181956780.013935.222260@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, that is true, but better quotes than rocks. K.W. P.S. Nobody
told me what a "Watchtower" was.
The Watchtower Society is a quasi religious group of bible, book and
magazine sellers. They're better known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their
main offices and opulent palace-like estate is located in NY.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 04:23:59 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 8:30 pm, "Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote:
<khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181956780.013935.222260@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, that is true, but better quotes than rocks. K.W. P.S. Nobody
told me what a "Watchtower" was.
The Watchtower Society is a quasi religious group of bible, book and
magazine sellers. They're better known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their
main offices and opulent palace-like estate is located in NY.
That's what I was afraid of. That's the reason for the S & W. 460
mag. K.W.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 01:16:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:24:04 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:18:22 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> skrev i melding
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.08.54.423449@com.mkbilbo...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:26:55 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it?
Yes. And, by the way, you're an idiot.
Ahh, the idiot, moron "argument":) where do they pick up these people,
evolutionists are arrogant sacks of *****, but I guess that comes with organized
religious beliefs.
Yeah, ignore that century and a half of research and the overwhelming
scientific concensus! Bronze age goat herders, *they knew everything!
That explains why Satan is anatomically depicted with so many goat parts. Man,
fermented goat's milk must have been pretty wicked stuff!
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 05:20:39 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.06.14.00.08.54.423449@com.mkbilbo...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:26:55 +0000, ZilentNoise wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it?
Yes. And, by the way, you're an idiot.
He's also a well known sociopath, habitual liar and net-stalker.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil MacDouglass" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 01:31:27 AM |
|
|
does a supernova pass the scientif method dumbass?
has anyone recreated a exploding star in a lab?
god yer so pathetic!
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:ziZbi.6920$xg4.6831@trnddc08...
Mike wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it? why doesn't it pass the scientific method, Ask whether the
hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by
some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others
duplicate evolution and get the same result?
Your quote was about
disagreements among scientists over the processes that describe HOW
life evolves; there is no disagreement among scientists that life HAS
evolved.
not according to many scientist-- you want names?
Are you really so stupid you can't grasp this distinction?
I know it's hard for you, but try to concentrate and distinguish
between two logically distinct questions:
1) HAS life evolved from pre-existing life forms?
Has it? can it demonstrated?
2) HOW exactly does life evolve; are the processes fully understood?
Is it. beside speciation have new life form come into existence?
The affirmative answer to question 1 is as well established as the
fact that the earth is round rather than flat.
uh.. no. doesn't pass the scientific method.
As for question 2,
well, research is ongoing and new paleontological evidence continues
to be discovered.
Meaning? like Piltdown?
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 09:23:15 AM |
|
|
"Phil MacDouglass" <mary_s@weyland-yutani.com> skrev i melding
news:1h5ci.1107$vi5.698@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
does a supernova pass the scientif method dumbass?
has anyone recreated a exploding star in a lab?
god yer so pathetic!
Is stupid comparison not one of the signs of organised dupedassess? One can'g
copy an explosion of a star in a lab, but like the sun, it's right there in our faces, we
_see_ it happen in front of our eyes. The evolution elves theory is completely
woven into it's own fantasy system in a totally incomplete but imaginative way.
Saba
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message news:ziZbi.6920$xg4.6831@trnddc08...
Mike wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
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 moron. Evolution is a fact.
Is it? why doesn't it pass the scientific method, Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in
principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it
testable? Can others duplicate evolution and get the same result?
Your quote was about
disagreements among scientists over the processes that describe HOW
life evolves; there is no disagreement among scientists that life HAS
evolved.
not according to many scientist-- you want names?
Are you really so stupid you can't grasp this distinction?
I know it's hard for you, but try to concentrate and distinguish
between two logically distinct questions:
1) HAS life evolved from pre-existing life forms?
Has it? can it demonstrated?
2) HOW exactly does life evolve; are the processes fully understood?
Is it. beside speciation have new life form come into existence?
The affirmative answer to question 1 is as well established as the
fact that the earth is round rather than flat.
uh.. no. doesn't pass the scientific method.
As for question 2,
well, research is ongoing and new paleontological evidence continues
to be discovered.
Meaning? like Piltdown?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 07:36:54 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:23:15 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
has anyone recreated a exploding star in a lab?
god yer so pathetic!
Is stupid comparison not one of the signs of organised dupedassess? One
can'g copy an explosion of a star in a lab, but like the sun, it's right
there in our faces, we _see_ it happen in front of our eyes.
Like evolution. I'm sure you had some point to make there.
--
If I move to Auzyland maybe I’ll put up a Crime Syndicate of
Scientology web site so enturbulating I’ll make Hubbard rise from
Hell. - David Rice
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
14 Jun 2007 05:27:22 PM |
|
|
"Phil MacDouglass" <mary_s@weyland-yutani.com> wrote in message
news:1h5ci.1107$vi5.698@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
does a supernova pass the scientif method dumbass?
has anyone recreated a exploding star in a lab?
god yer so pathetic!
He's a very smart nym-shifting troll Phil. He knows just what to post to
tick people off and get replies i.e. attention. He'll post *anything* to
get people's attention. He has no life off the PC - the PC, trolling on
Usenet and harassing his female victims is his life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 04:49:30 PM |
|
|
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$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*...
Thought evolving
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. A demostrable fact.
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.
Uh... Eratosthenes established not only that the earth was round but
that it curved about 8 inches to the mile, thus fairly accurately
measuring the circumference of the earth. He did that over 2,000
years ago. "Flat earth" theory hasn't held sway since very ancient
times. Only idiots like you invoke it as an example of scientific
ignorance, as if it had any pertinence to discussion at all.
It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth.
It was believed and held dogma by both the Christian and Islamist
sects because their scriptures described the sun as rising. After all,
if you really think the Bible is the word of God, and God doesn't lie,
then you have to believe the sun rises. The Bible says it does. If
not, you're on the road to recovery.
Now we know for
sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a
fact.
It's a theory, not a fact.
Many things that were once only debated theories have been
established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
Yes??? And you know about these many things???? Liar. This is
*****, an embellishment of yours intended to demonstrate your
"scholarship." You know nothing.
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground?
Uh... yes. Any other questions?
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. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.
No. No one who is not a fundamentalist nutcase disagrees with the
tenants of Evolutionary Theory. What evolved from what, or the order
and mechanism of evolution may be debated (or whatever), but not
evolution itself.
And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution
themselves are saying about the matter.
You're interested in ignorance, not enlightenment.
Go to school. Take a course in Biology. If you're afraid you won't
pass, then just audit the course. Stop with Bible study for two months
and stay away from your brainwashed friends. You may find a friend in
Darwin, one who doesn't rely on magic and nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 09:37:51 AM |
|
|
"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1181771370.733262.298820@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@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*...
Thought evolving
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. A demostrable fact.
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.
Uh... Eratosthenes established not only that the earth was round but
that it curved about 8 inches to the mile, thus fairly accurately
measuring the circumference of the earth. He did that over 2,000
years ago. "Flat earth" theory hasn't held sway since very ancient
times. Only idiots like you invoke it as an example of scientific
ignorance, as if it had any pertinence to discussion at all.
It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth.
It was believed and held dogma by both the Christian and Islamist
sects because their scriptures described the sun as rising. After all,
if you really think the Bible is the word of God, and God doesn't lie,
then you have to believe the sun rises. The Bible says it does. If
not, you're on the road to recovery.
We all say 'the sun rises' every freakin day, s-head. It's the way we talk,
and so did the bible, it didn't use scientific terms, but people's talk, aukei?
Now we know for
sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a
fact.
It's a theory, not a fact.
Many things that were once only debated theories have been
established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
Yes??? And you know about these many things???? Liar. This is
*****, an embellishment of yours intended to demonstrate your
"scholarship." You know nothing.
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground?
Uh... yes. Any other questions?
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. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.
No. No one who is not a fundamentalist nutcase disagrees with the
tenants of Evolutionary Theory. What evolved from what, or the order
and mechanism of evolution may be debated (or whatever), but not
evolution itself.
And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution
themselves are saying about the matter.
You're interested in ignorance, not enlightenment.
Go to school. Take a course in Biology.
Take a b-wash course in Evolution Imagination Theory.You mean?
If you're afraid you won't
pass, then just audit the course. Stop with Bible study for two months
and stay away from your brainwashed friends. You may find a friend in
Darwin, one who doesn't rely on magic and nonsense.
Like the evolution theorists, whom fills up their gaping craters and holes
to cover up it's inadequacy.
S
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 02:18:54 PM |
|
|
"~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:APqdnfTimbrDOe_bRVnzvAA@telenor.com...
Like the evolution theorists, whom fills up their gaping craters and holes
to cover up it's inadequacy.
But you have shown us no evidence for a magical fantastical and supernatural
creation!
.
|
|
|
| User: "~saba gracile~" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
09 Jul 2007 03:12:22 AM |
|
|
"The Apostate" <durondae_@_hotpop.com> skrev i melding
news:f4uon6$ul4$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"~saba gracile~" <veronisc@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:APqdnfTimbrDOe_bRVnzvAA@telenor.com...
Like the evolution theorists, whom fills up their gaping craters and holes
to cover up it's inadequacy.
But you have shown us no evidence for a magical fantastical and supernatural creation!
and I haven't seen a video of the magical fantastical and supernatural development
of all the speices on this planet the way evolutionists dreamed it up in their cozy little dreams.
S
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 01:22:25 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 10:37 am, "~saba gracile~" <veron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
"t1gercat" <wexford1...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1181771370.733262.298820@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:yDSbi.4296$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*...
Thought evolving
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. A demostrable fact.
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.
Uh... Eratosthenes established not only that the earth was round but
that it curved about 8 inches to the mile, thus fairly accurately
measuring the circumference of the earth. He did that over 2,000
years ago. "Flat earth" theory hasn't held sway since very ancient
times. Only idiots like you invoke it as an example of scientific
ignorance, as if it had any pertinence to discussion at all.
It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth.
An erudite rebuttal!
It was believed and held dogma by both the Christian and Islamist
sects because their scriptures described the sun as rising. After all,
if you really think the Bible is the word of God, and God doesn't lie,
then you have to believe the sun rises. The Bible says it does. If
not, you're on the road to recovery.
We all say 'the sun rises' every freakin day, s-head. It's the way we talk,
and so did the bible, it didn't use scientific terms, but people's talk, aukei?
Well, fuckwit, the Church authories thought enough of the inerrancy of
the Bible to maintain that the phrase meant exactly what it said --
the sun rises. That's why they arrested Galileo and showed him the
instruments of torture to get him to revoke his heliocentric theories.
If you do not believe the sun rises, then you are calling God a liar.
Simple as that. You can't have an inerrant tome that contains errors.
Now we know for
sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a
fact.
It's a theory, not a fact.
Many things that were once only debated theories have been
established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.
Yes??? And you know about these many things???? Liar. This is
*****, an embellishment of yours intended to demonstrate your
"scholarship." You know nothing.
Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the
same solid ground?
Uh... yes. Any other questions?
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. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.
No. No one who is not a fundamentalist nutcase disagrees with the
tenants of Evolutionary Theory. What evolved from what, or the order
and mechanism of evolution may be debated (or whatever), but not
evolution itself.
And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution
themselves are saying about the matter.
You're interested in ignorance, not enlightenment.
Go to school. Take a course in Biology.
Take a b-wash course in Evolution Imagination Theory.You mean?
No. Take a course in biology.
If you're afraid you won't
pass, then just audit the course. Stop with Bible study for two months
and stay away from your brainwashed friends. You may find a friend in
Darwin, one who doesn't rely on magic and nonsense.
Like the evolution theorists, whom fills up their gaping craters and holes
to cover up it's inadequacy.
What gaping craters and holes??? What's the alternative, *****,
Goddidit? That's a theory?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
15 Jun 2007 02:21:39 PM |
|
|
"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181931745.383258.122930@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
What gaping craters and holes??? What's the alternative, *****,
Goddidit? That's a theory?
She's just repeating in her own words what she reads on the creation
websites. She has so far produced no evidence of a creation or a
god/gods/goddesses.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
16 Jun 2007 07:52:52 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:37:51 +0200, ~saba gracile~ wrote:
It was once believed that the earth was the center of the
universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth.
It was believed and held dogma by both the Christian and Islamist
sects because their scriptures described the sun as rising. After all,
if you really think the Bible is the word of God, and God doesn't lie,
then you have to believe the sun rises. The Bible says it does. If
not, you're on the road to recovery.
We all say 'the sun rises' every freakin day, s-head. It's the way we talk,
and so did the bible, it didn't use scientific terms, but people's talk,
aukei?
Nope. Doesn't wash.
There is nothing difficult in describing the rotation of the earth to
expose different areas of it to the sun, and an omniscient entity would
both know the correctness of the situation and have the ability to
describe it in simple and comprehensible terms.
Your argument is thus that either the book wasn't written by such an
entity, or that it was, but the entity is so retarded it can't figure out
how to correctly describe simple processes in simple terms.
Neither of these are compelling arguments for the validity of the book;
yet despite this, believers in it (why do they persist in believing in a
damn *book*, anyways? Aren't they suppose to believe in the god described
therein?) took this as proof of geocentrism. Pretty silly, but so is
theism in general.
--
“Life lately has been one long doppler shift...” -- Cat
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: comments from Paleontologist Niles Eldredge was Re: TOBS disagreementsamong scientists on evolution |
13 Jun 2007 04:55:13 PM |
|
|
t1gercat wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:06 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Pt. Lurk wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNo...@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*...
Thought evolving
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. A demostrable fact.
The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way:
“Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians,
but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among
paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is
growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis
Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the
Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a
quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The
doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of
evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He
spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,”
and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it
seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary]
theme as there are individual biologists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
