What do Scientists think about evolution?

Religions > Atheism > What do Scientists think about evolution?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 9 of 11

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Soren K."
Date:	15 Aug 2004 08:40:30 PM
Object:	What do Scientists think about evolution?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440"
------=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BlankWhat do Scientists think about evolution?=20
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most scientists just go =
about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention of =
mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's =
take a look at what scientists have to say:=20
Recent Quotations:=20
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the =
only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to =
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that =
we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A =
Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.=20
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so =
powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval =
astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become =
a reality for evolutionary biologists."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A =
Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].=20
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him =
adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so =
fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so =
profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the =
universe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 =
[Australian molecular biologist].=20
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of =
creation."?*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe =
(1981), p. 19.=20
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all =
scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their =
observations to fit in with it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at =
Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.=20
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean =
Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was =
new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the =
final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."?*Fred Hoyle and =
N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.=20
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations =
for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth =
fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have =
developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If =
they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created =
by some omnipotent intelligence."?*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial =
(1983), p. 197.=20
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion =
that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago =
and that all subsequent biological research?paleontological, zoological, =
and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology?has provided =
ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."?*Michael Denton, =
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.=20
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a =
simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly =
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the =
weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay =
down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not =
always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely =
overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity =
of their beliefs."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms =
(1977), p. 8=20
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics =
has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has =
been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It =
certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, =
we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one =
thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest =
that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."?*Colin =
Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural =
History (November 5, 1981).=20
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant =
minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring =
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the =
number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment =
is practically endless."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis =
(1986), p. 327.=20
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact =
that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of =
many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems =
will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. =
Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and =
all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the =
contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to =
re-evaluate our basic assumptions."?*Director of a large graduate =
program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.=20
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that =
Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined =
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, =
in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are =
certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious =
fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The =
main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The =
doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather =
than a siege from without."?*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook =
of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.=20
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin =
of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the =
creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily =
burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every =
book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation =
of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a =
basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are =
correct."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), =
p. 31.=20
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and =
stick by it to the bitter end?no matter which illogical and unsupported =
conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists =
recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements =
and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to =
Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."?I.L. =
Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).=20
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for =
Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of =
life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by =
natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see =
the very process we profess to study."?*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's =
Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading =
evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].=20
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the =
all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of =
people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as =
proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. =
Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a =
philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a =
belief in the meaninglessness of existence."?*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery =
of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.=20
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution =
because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the =
long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see =
whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in =
with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the =
theory does not stand up at all."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at =
Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.=20
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than =
the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of =
life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when =
Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A =
Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.=20
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that =
even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his =
views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support =
over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary =
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and =
evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is =
still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis =
entirely without direct factual support and very far from that =
self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us =
believe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77.=20
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please =
everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, =
but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are =
threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian =
fallacy."?*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.=20
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago =
is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on =
special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad =
hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it =
appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history =
nor science."?*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard =
University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.=20
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole =
organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species =
become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent =
the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument =
be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For =
example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through =
time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh =
climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told =
about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink =
containers."?*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, =
Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 =
(1984), pp. 796-797.=20
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the =
all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of =
people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution =
as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his =
successors."?*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).=20
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any =
evolutionary theory I know."?*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and =
Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).=20
Perhaps scientists used to be kinder to evolution in the past:
Older Quotations:=20
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in =
the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but =
purely the product of imagination."?*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen =
zoologist].=20
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a =
single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others =
derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal =
types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this =
assumption."?*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.=20
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at =
present, still an article of faith."?*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations =
of Science (1933), p. 95.=20
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves =
facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know =
virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."?*W. Kaempffert, "The =
Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.=20
'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and =
manifestation of the inorganic world.' "?Sir John Ambrose Fleming, =
F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 =
[discoverer of the thermionic valve].=20
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence =
in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of =
Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."?*W.R. =
Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species =
[Canadian scientist].=20
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental =
imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system =
without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence =
[a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of =
fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of =
breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science =
it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' =
"?*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).=20
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to =
the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional =
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."?J. =
Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.=20
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently =
assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find =
satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no =
meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure =
metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why =
he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no =
doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness =
was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired =
was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic =
system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to =
the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."?*Aldous =
Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the =
News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, =
Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian =
Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of =
the 20th century].=20
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped =
nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."?*Bounoure, Le Monde =
Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of =
Scientific Research in France].=20
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just =
shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. =
Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only =
thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an =
analysis and observation of the facts."?*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: =
Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.=20
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. =
Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not =
all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see =
them, well-defined species?"?*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, =
Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.=20
" 'Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly =
conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former =
period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its =
appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some =
pre-existing Being."?*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and =
Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.=20
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and =
more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical =
scientific knowledge."?*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.=20
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so =
far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can =
be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the =
relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are =
actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable =
predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."?*R.H. Peters, =
"Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. =
110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].=20
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the =
somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living =
origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the =
theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in =
the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: =
namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved =
to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval =
past."?*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.=20
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive =
every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory =
replaces God with an even more incredible deity?omnipotent chance."?*T. =
Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.=20
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous =
natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological =
research. It obstructs?as has been repeatedly shown?the attainment of =
consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For =
everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact =
biology cannot, therefore, be built up."?*H. Neilsson, Synthetische =
Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.=20
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for =
more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be =
accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary =
standpoint."?*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.=20
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was =
in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out =
by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen =
their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to =
fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the =
theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of =
the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and =
of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of =
science."?Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the =
British Museum of Natural History, London].=20
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not =
be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the =
fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did =
not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most =
primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks =
developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a =
complete absence of intermediate fossils."?*D.B. Gower, "Scientist =
Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 =
[biochemist].=20
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the =
over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make =
further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or =
biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and =
down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' =
"?*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 =
(1966).=20
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, =
upon belief in the reality of the unseen?belief in the fossils that =
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse =
to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."?*Arthur N. Field.=20
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been =
deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to =
teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, =
ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It =
results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is =
impossible."?*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie =
Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.=20
--=20
Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists
www.atheistfools.com
------=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=3DridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"><BASE=20
href=3D"file://C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft =
Shared\Stationery\">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; =
FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; =
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3DridBody bgColor=3D#ffffff=20
background=3Dcid:004301c48332$03a1df00$0300a8c0@desktop>
<DIV>What do Scientists think =
about=20
evolution?=20
Outside the occasional book or research paper, most =
scientists=20
just go about their work quietly. Unless something catches the attention =
of=20
mainstream media, most people never hear what they have to say. Let's =
take a=20
look at what scientists have to say: 
Recent Quotations: 
"I think, however, that we must go further than this =
and admit=20
that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is =
anathema=20
to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory =
that we do=20
not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A =
Physicist=20
Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. 
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical =
system] is=20
so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval =
astrology=20
than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality =
for=20
evolutionary biologists."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis =
(1985),=20
p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist]. 
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link =
with God=20
and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact =
was so=20
fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so =
profoundly=20
affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the=20
universe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67=20
[Australian molecular biologist]. 
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the =
result of an=20
act of creation."?*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the =
Universe=20
(1981), p. 19. 
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific =
religion;=20
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' =
their=20
observations to fit in with it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at =
Evolution,"=20
Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. 
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] =
to the=20
Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All =
that was=20
new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the =
final=20
verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."?*Fred Hoyle and N. =
Chandra=20
Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159. 
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the =
possible=20
explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared =
on the=20
earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have =
developed=20
from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did =
appear in=20
a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent=20
intelligence."?*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197. 
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a =
widespread=20
illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred =
years ago=20
and that all subsequent biological research?paleontological, zoological, =
and in=20
the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology?has provided=20
ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."?*Michael Denton, =
Evolution: A=20
Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327. 
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, =
considered=20
as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly =
unfolding=20
before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses =
and=20
extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as =
established=20
truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some =
people,=20
owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to=20
acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."?*Pierre-Paul =
de=20
Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8 
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common =
ancestry in=20
systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I =
think it=20
has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It =
certainly=20
has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back =
to the=20
question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell =
me=20
about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, =
evolution does=20
not convey any knowledge."?*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at =
the=20
American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981). 
"Throughout the past century there has always existed =
a=20
significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able =
to bring=20
themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the =
number of=20
biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is =
practically=20
endless."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327. =

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet =
lament=20
the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully =
ignorant of=20
many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems =
will not be=20
solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students =
assume=20
evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is =
a few=20
rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and =
many recent=20
discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic =
assumptions."?*Director=20
of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting =
Edge=20
(1982), p. 26. 
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both =
biologists and=20
layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that =
undermined=20
nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, =
in its=20
turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not =
limited=20
to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny =
Darwinism=20
for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes =
from=20
within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political =
revolt=20
from within rather than a siege from without."?*B. Leith, The Descent of =
Darwin:=20
A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11. 
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence =
relative to=20
the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the =
mechanism in the=20
creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily =
burdened with=20
hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on =
evolution. The=20
lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as =
to the=20
genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the =
extent to=20
which these opinions are correct."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of =
Living=20
Organisms (1977), p. 31. 
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory =
of=20
evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end?no matter which illogical =
and=20
unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that=20
scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's=20
pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that =
tied us=20
down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us =
back."?I.L.=20
Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985). 
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an =
exorbitant price=20
for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of =
life's=20
history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural =
selection=20
we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we =
profess=20
to study."?*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 =
[Harvard=20
professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of =
the=20
twentieth century]. 
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists =
committed to=20
document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with =
masses of=20
people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as =
proposed=20
by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, =
the=20
appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical =
belief which=20
is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the =
meaninglessness of=20
existence."?*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, =
(May=20
27, 1983), p. 641. 
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory =
of=20
evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living =
beings=20
(the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to =
see=20
whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in =
with=20
Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory =
does not=20
stand up at all."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic =
Bulletin,=20
31 (1980), p. 138. 
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no =
more nor=20
less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the =
origin of=20
life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when =
Darwin set=20
sail on the [ship] Beagle."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in =
Crisis=20
(1986), p. 358. 
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one =
hundred years=20
ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of =
his=20
views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support =
over the=20
past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His =
general=20
theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual=20
successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in =
Darwin's=20
time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual =
support=20
and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive =
advocates=20
would have us believe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis =
(1986),=20
p. 77. 
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had =
the luck=20
to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to =
grind,=20
but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are =
threatened=20
by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."?*Kenneth =
Hsu,=20
"Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177. 
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some =
thousands of=20
years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special =
assumptions on=20
special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad =
hoc=20
hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears=20
convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor=20
science."?*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard =
University],=20
quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2. 
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential =
survival=20
of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. =
some=20
species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this =
represent=20
the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument =
be=20
equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For =
example,=20
consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. =
Clearly the=20
harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. =
As=20
Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political =
parties,=20
rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."?*A.J. Hughes =
and *D.=20
Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of=20
Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797. 
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists =
committed to=20
document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with =
masses of=20
people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution =
as=20
proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his =
successors."?*S.=20
Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982). 
"I can envision observations and experiments that =
would=20
disprove any evolutionary theory I know."?*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution =
as Fact=20
and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981). 
Perhaps scientists used to be kinder to evolution in the=20
past: Older Quotations: 
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single =
fact to=20
confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific =
research,=20
but purely the product of imagination."?*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen =
zoologist].=20

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with =
bodies=20
composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all =
others=20
derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal =
types in=20
their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this =
assumption."?*Austin=20
Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236. 
"The hypothesis that life has developed from =
inorganic matter=20
is, at present, still an article of faith."?*J.W.N. Sullivan, The =
Limitations of=20
Science (1933), p. 95. 
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of =
life? We find=20
ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We =
know=20
virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."?*W. Kaempffert, "The =
Greatest=20
Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times. 
'The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to =
explain the=20
origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "?Sir John Ambrose =
Fleming,=20
F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 =
[discoverer of=20
the thermionic valve]. 
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or =
that his=20
influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the =
success=20
of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific =
integrity."?*W.R.=20
Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species =
[Canadian=20
scientist]. 
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a =
fantastic=20
accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the =
solar=20
system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without =
evidence=20
[a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of =
fossils=20
which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding=20
experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might =
truly=20
be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "?*David C.C. Watson, =
The=20
Great Brain Robbery (1976). 
"The particular truth is simply that we have no =
reliable=20
evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified =
professional=20
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."?J. =
Bonner,=20
"Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240. 
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have =
meaning,=20
consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to =
find=20
satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no =
meaning=20
in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure =
metaphysics; he=20
is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally =
should not=20
do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my =
contemporaries,=20
the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of =
liberation.=20
The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain =
political=20
and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We =
objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual =
freedom."?*Aldous=20
Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the =
News,=20
Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, =
Darwin's=20
closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. =
Aldous=20
Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th =
century].=20

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This =
theory has=20
helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."?*Bounoure, Le =
Monde=20
Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of =
Scientific Research in France]. 
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is =
possible as I=20
have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before =
life.=20
Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only =
thing I am=20
interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and=20
observation of the facts."?*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le =
Transformisme=20
devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331. 
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms =
must have=20
existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why =
is not=20
all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see =
them,=20
well-defined species?"?*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or =
Creation (1966), p. 139. 
" 'Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is =
perfectly=20
conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former =
period,=20
this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in =
six days=20
.. . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."?*Thomas =
Huxley,=20
quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. =
II=20
(1903), p. 429. 
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, =
which are=20
more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with =
practical=20
scientific knowledge."?*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist. 
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take =
predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical =
formula=20
which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show =
the=20
relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are =
actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable =
predictions.=20
They are not scientific theories at all."?*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in =
Evolution=20
and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 =
[emphasis his].=20

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was =
left in=20
the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of =
living=20
origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the =
theologian for=20
his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable =
position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the =
assumption that=20
what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in =
truth,=20
taken place in the primeval past."?*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, =
(1957),=20
p. 199. 
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of =
Darwinism was to=20
drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory =
replaces God with an even more incredible deity?omnipotent chance."?*T. =
Rosazak,=20
Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102. 
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as =
an=20
innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to =
biological=20
research. It obstructs?as has been repeatedly shown?the attainment of =
consistent=20
results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must =
ultimately=20
be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be =
built=20
up."?*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11. 
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an =
experiment carried=20
on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should =
hardly be=20
accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary=20
standpoint."?*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31. 
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by =
people whose=20
faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being =
carried=20
out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've =
seen their=20
task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the =
trunk=20
and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework =
has=20
very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological =
research. In=20
a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have =
held=20
back the progress of science."?Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior=20
paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London]. 
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of =
evolution=20
could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The =
story of the=20
fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did =
not find=20
a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive =
creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed =
species=20
suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of =
intermediate fossils."?*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," =
Kentish=20
Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist]. 
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in =
spite of=20
the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make =
further=20
progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; =
and we=20
shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, =
`Darwin is=20
god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "?*Errol White, Proceedings of =
the=20
Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966). 
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing =
whatever but=20
faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen?belief in the fossils =
that=20
cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse =
to come=20
off. It is faith unjustified by works."?*Arthur N. Field. 
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious =
youth have=20
been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues =
to=20
teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, =
ascertains=20
that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from =
this=20
summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."?*P. Lemoine,=20
"Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), =
p. 6.=20
</DIV>
<DIV> -- Celebrating the stupidity of Atheists <A=20
href=3D"http://www.atheistfools.com">www.atheistfools.com</A></DIV>
 </BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_0049_01C482F7.57461440--
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C482F7.57461440
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="Blank Bkgrd.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <004301c48332$03a1df00$0300a8c0@desktop>
R0lGODlhLQAtAID/AP////f39ywAAAAALQAtAEACcAxup8vtvxKQsFon6d02898pGkgiYoCm6sq2
7iqWcmzOsmeXeA7uPJd5CYdD2g9oPF58ygqz+XhCG9JpJGmlYrPXGlfr/Yo/VW45e7amp2tou/lW
xo/zX513z+Vt+1n/tiX2pxP4NUhy2FM4xtjIUQAAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C482F7.57461440--
.

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	16 Aug 2004 10:33:05 PM

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:29:46 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:

Now what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics concern smartass?

Where does it apply?

What is entropy?

Which of the following is precluded by the 2nd law?
1. An isolated iron bar that is hot at one end and cold at the other
staying that way.
2. Atomic particles combining under heat and pressure to form atoms
3. Atoms combining under heat and pressure to form more complex atoms
4. Atoms spontaneously combining to form molecules
5. Molecules spontaneously combining to form complex molecules

If entropy is so simple surely you can explain these things?

All matter and energy relationships in the entire universe show a
reliance on entropy. If you disagree with that statement, its not my
fault you don't understand entropy.

Answer the questions Mr Poseur! Never mind the buffing and posturing.

And besides as is the techique of egotistical teachers and educators -
ask trick questions and when the students can't answer it, laugh and
snicker at how dumb they are. Utterly peurile bunch.

Those aren't trick questions. Just basic science. You're ducking and
dodging and trying to make everybody believe that you're really oh-so
wise and insightful, but it's not working!
Answer the questions or admit you're a fraud.
You may be mad, but you're no scientist.
## Are you a man or a mouse? Squeak up!
.

User: "Mad Scientist"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	16 Aug 2004 11:40:14 PM

John Ings wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:29:46 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:

In this you are simply stating a fact. One end is hot and one end is
cold and it stays that way. According to thermodynamics, that is
impossible. For heat always moves towards the cold end of the spectrum
with a subsequent loss in energy.

2. Atomic particles combining under heat and pressure to form atoms

There is no such thing as 'atomic' particles, they are known as
sub-atomic particles. So your statement above truly makes no sense.
Heat is involved (why you bring up pressure without explaining it
because we are talking about thermodynamics, not vacuum flux and gravity
waves) so obviously there will be a loss in the system as per entropic
rules.

3. Atoms combining under heat and pressure to form more complex atoms

Another way of stating the exact same thing in your ridiculous number 2.

4. Atoms spontaneously combining to form molecules

Spontaneously? Any form of energy transfer in any system is going to
experience a loss of energy as in the capacity of energy to do work. If
heat is present, and ususally there is an amount ofheat present when
atoms combine however large of small, there will also be within the
system the loss of energy as in the capacity of the system to perform work.

5. Molecules spontaneously combining to form complex molecules

Again just another way of stating what you state above. Really peurile
of you.

If entropy is so simple surely you can explain these things?

All matter and energy relationships in the entire universe show a
reliance on entropy. If you disagree with that statement, its not my
fault you don't understand entropy.

Answer the questions Mr Poseur! Never mind the buffing and posturing.

And besides as is the techique of egotistical teachers and educators -
ask trick questions and when the students can't answer it, laugh and
snicker at how dumb they are. Utterly peurile bunch.

Those aren't trick questions.

I never said they were 'trick' questions, it was an explanation by way
of generalization of how egotists such as you operate. To answer your
question since you seem so bent on calling me a fraud, thermodynamics
applies to matter energy relationships in terms of heat and thus entropy
is the measure in a system of the loss of capicity to do work.
Just basic science. You're ducking and

dodging and trying to make everybody believe that you're really oh-so
wise and insightful, but it's not working!

Answer the questions or admit you're a fraud.
You may be mad, but you're no scientist.

Still don't know about the 4th law that many professional physicists
already know about, and was even in the news lately when Hawking talked
about his recent apology and why he wrong to argue against information
inside black holes and how information can 'leak' out? He used the word
Centropy, but ofcourse you didnt know that because you are in fact
nothing but an immature little poseur amateur.

## Are you a man or a mouse? Squeak up!

Now give your head a shake, take some of your meds and try growing up
for a change.
.

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	17 Aug 2004 08:00:10 AM

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:40:14 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:

Now what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics concern smartass?

Well?

Where does it apply?

Where does it apply Mad?

What is entropy?

Well?

Which of the following is precluded by the 2nd law?
1. An isolated iron bar that is hot at one end and cold at the other
staying that way.

In this you are simply stating a fact. One end is hot and one end is
cold and it stays that way.

It's a fact it stays that way?

According to thermodynamics, that is
impossible. For heat always moves towards the cold end of the spectrum

Cold end of the spectrum?

with a subsequent loss in energy.

Heat moves and energy is lost?

2. Atomic particles combining under heat and pressure to form atoms

Nice bluff, but you didn't answer the question. Does the 2nd law say
this increase in complexity cannot spontaneously occur?

3. Atoms combining under heat and pressure to form more complex atoms

Another way of stating the exact same thing in your ridiculous number 2.

Which you didn't answer.

4. Atoms spontaneously combining to form molecules

Again you ducked the question. Is that the sort of bluffing that
caused teachers to be surprised and indignant when you tried to pass
such babble off as an answer?

5. Molecules spontaneously combining to form complex molecules

Again just another way of stating what you state above. Really peurile
of you.

Just answer the questions Mad. Never mind substituting insult for
honest response. For the last five questions a simple yes or no answer
will suffice.

If entropy is so simple surely you can explain these things?

All matter and energy relationships in the entire universe show a
reliance on entropy. If you disagree with that statement, its not my
fault you don't understand entropy.

Answer the questions Mr Poseur! Never mind the buffing and posturing.

And besides as is the techique of egotistical teachers and educators -
ask trick questions and when the students can't answer it, laugh and
snicker at how dumb they are. Utterly peurile bunch.

Those aren't trick questions.

I never said they were 'trick' questions,

You clearly implied just that.

it was an explanation by way
of generalization of how egotists such as you operate.

Exactly. And such generalizations are how you operate. Ask a question
of Mad that requires a specific answer, get a meandering paragraph of
seemingly erudite babble in response.

To answer your
question since you seem so bent on calling me a fraud, thermodynamics
applies to matter energy relationships in terms of heat and thus entropy
is the measure in a system of the loss of capicity to do work.

Nice clip from a webpage, but that won't help you here. You've been
caught off your metaphysical grounds where you can get away with such
bluff and bluster. Now WHERE does the 2nd law apply?

Just basic science. You're ducking and
dodging and trying to make everybody believe that you're really oh-so
wise and insightful, but it's not working!

Answer the questions or admit you're a fraud.
You may be mad, but you're no scientist.

No, that's you Mad-who-is-no-scientist. Now never mind the red
herring. You're not qualified to pontificate on the 2nd law, never
mind the 4th! Answer the questions!

## Cap'n! The twit shields canna take much more o' this!
.

User: "Mad Scientist"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	17 Aug 2004 01:06:28 PM

Another usenet sociopath plays some more mind games:
John Ings wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:40:14 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:

Now what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics concern smartass?

Well?

Where does it apply?

Where does it apply Mad?

What is entropy?

Well?

Which of the following is precluded by the 2nd law?
1. An isolated iron bar that is hot at one end and cold at the other
staying that way.

In this you are simply stating a fact. One end is hot and one end is
cold and it stays that way.

It's a fact it stays that way?

According to thermodynamics, that is
impossible. For heat always moves towards the cold end of the spectrum

Cold end of the spectrum?

with a subsequent loss in energy.

Heat moves and energy is lost?

2. Atomic particles combining under heat and pressure to form atoms

Nice bluff, but you didn't answer the question. Does the 2nd law say
this increase in complexity cannot spontaneously occur?

Sociopath fails to understand plain english.

3. Atoms combining under heat and pressure to form more complex atoms

Another way of stating the exact same thing in your ridiculous number 2.

Which you didn't answer.

\
Sociopath asks rhetorical questions that have only *one* answer.

4. Atoms spontaneously combining to form molecules

Again you ducked the question. Is that the sort of bluffing that
caused teachers to be surprised and indignant when you tried to pass
such babble off as an answer?

Sociopath asks rhetorical questions which have only *one* answer

5. Molecules spontaneously combining to form complex molecules

Again just another way of stating what you state above. Really peurile
of you.

Just answer the questions Mad. Never mind substituting insult for
honest response. For the last five questions a simple yes or no answer
will suffice.

Sociopath again demonstrates some more peurile psycho babble.

If entropy is so simple surely you can explain these things?

All matter and energy relationships in the entire universe show a
reliance on entropy. If you disagree with that statement, its not my
fault you don't understand entropy.

Answer the questions Mr Poseur! Never mind the buffing and posturing.

And besides as is the techique of egotistical teachers and educators -
ask trick questions and when the students can't answer it, laugh and
snicker at how dumb they are. Utterly peurile bunch.

Those aren't trick questions.

I never said they were 'trick' questions,

You clearly implied just that.

Clearly not sociopath but if you insist, I'll agree with you.

it was an explanation by way
of generalization of how egotists such as you operate.

Exactly. And such generalizations are how you operate. Ask a question
of Mad that requires a specific answer, get a meandering paragraph of
seemingly erudite babble in response.

Nice clip from a webpage,

Sociopath doesn't like to be wrong. That was my explanation, no clip
necessary.
but that won't help you here. You've been

caught off your metaphysical grounds where you can get away with such
bluff and bluster. Now WHERE does the 2nd law apply?

Sociopath seems to think he understands entropy and thermodynamics. Too
bad that is all he understands about this universe.

No, that's you Mad-who-is-no-scientist. Now never mind the red
herring. You're not qualified to pontificate on the 2nd law, never
mind the 4th! Answer the questions!

You haven't got a clue do you sociopath?

## Cap'n! The twit shields canna take much more o' this!

Sociopathic people know how to circle round and round in their peurile
mental logic proving how trapped they are in their own insanity.
.

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	17 Aug 2004 03:05:43 PM

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:06:28 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:

2. Atomic particles combining under heat and pressure to form atoms

Nice bluff, but you didn't answer the question. Does the 2nd law say
this increase in complexity cannot spontaneously occur?

Sociopath fails to understand plain english.

That paragraph has nothing to do with plain English. Now answer the
question-- yes or no.

3. Atoms combining under heat and pressure to form more complex atoms

Another way of stating the exact same thing in your ridiculous number 2.

Which you didn't answer.

Sociopath asks rhetorical questions that have only *one* answer.

You have no idea whether I'm sociopathic or not, nor any way of
finding out. In fact I doubt if you even know what the word means.
That question has only one correct answer. Here, I'll give it to you
in multiple choice form:
(a) yes
(b) no
Pick one.

4. Atoms spontaneously combining to form molecules

Again you ducked the question. Is that the sort of bluffing that
caused teachers to be surprised and indignant when you tried to pass
such babble off as an answer?

Sociopath asks rhetorical questions which have only *one* answer

Yes or no. Come on wise guy. Never mind the metaphysical tapdancing...

5. Molecules spontaneously combining to form complex molecules

Again just another way of stating what you state above. Really peurile
of you.

Just answer the questions Mad. Never mind substituting insult for
honest response. For the last five questions a simple yes or no answer
will suffice.

Sociopath again demonstrates some more peurile psycho babble.

Translation: he doesn't know, and though a little research on the web
would provide the answers quite easily, he's too lazy to do even that,
so he keeps up with the bluffing and the charges of 'sociopath'.

If entropy is so simple surely you can explain these things?

All matter and energy relationships in the entire universe show a
reliance on entropy. If you disagree with that statement, its not my
fault you don't understand entropy.

Answer the questions Mr Poseur! Never mind the buffing and posturing.

And besides as is the techique of egotistical teachers and educators -
ask trick questions and when the students can't answer it, laugh and
snicker at how dumb they are. Utterly peurile bunch.

Those aren't trick questions.

I never said they were 'trick' questions,

You clearly implied just that.

Clearly not sociopath but if you insist, I'll agree with you.

Now answer the questions little metaphysical mousie! You wandered out
into scientific territory with your claim that entropy is a simple
concept. Now the cat's got you!

Nice clip from a webpage,

Sociopath doesn't like to be wrong. That was my explanation, no clip
necessary.

*****!

but that won't help you here. You've been

caught off your metaphysical grounds where you can get away with such
bluff and bluster. Now WHERE does the 2nd law apply?

Sociopath seems to think he understands entropy and thermodynamics. Too
bad that is all he understands about this universe.

And you're ever-so-much wiser! Or are you?
How is it you can't give simple yes or no answers to questions?

No, that's you Mad-who-is-no-scientist. Now never mind the red
herring. You're not qualified to pontificate on the 2nd law, never
mind the 4th! Answer the questions!

You haven't got a clue do you sociopath?

If I haven't a clue, howcome it's you who won't answer?
## I don't get ulcers, but I am a carrier!
.

User: "Mad Scientist"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	17 Aug 2004 03:30:40 PM

Sociopath spews some more psycho babble.
John Ings wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:06:28 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:

2. Atomic particles combining under heat and pressure to form atoms

Nice bluff, but you didn't answer the question. Does the 2nd law say
this increase in complexity cannot spontaneously occur?

Sociopath fails to understand plain english.

That paragraph has nothing to do with plain English. Now answer the
question-- yes or no.

3. Atoms combining under heat and pressure to form more complex atoms

Another way of stating the exact same thing in your ridiculous number 2.

Which you didn't answer.

Sociopath asks rhetorical questions that have only *one* answer.

You have no idea whether I'm sociopathic or not, nor any way of
finding out.

One can see it in your posts quite easily.
In fact I doubt if you even know what the word means.

That question has only one correct answer. Here, I'll give it to you
in multiple choice form:
(a) yes
(b) no

Pick one.

Poor sociopath, doesn't comprehend the basic english in my responses and
only further proves his insanity

4. Atoms spontaneously combining to form molecules

Again you ducked the question.

Hardly. You ducked the answer.
Is that the sort of bluffing that

caused teachers to be surprised and indignant when you tried to pass
such babble off as an answer?

More psycho babble from the brainwashed Communist evolutionist.

Sociopath asks rhetorical questions which have only *one* answer

Yes or no. Come on wise guy. Never mind the metaphysical tapdancing...

Sociopaths demands *one* to a question, when he claims to understand
science, he should know that quantum physics says there is no *one* answer.

5. Molecules spontaneously combining to form complex molecules

Again just another way of stating what you state above. Really peurile
of you.

Just answer the questions Mad. Never mind substituting insult for
honest response. For the last five questions a simple yes or no answer
will suffice.

I already did answer, and I won't play your *one answer* psychopathology.

Sociopath again demonstrates some more peurile psycho babble.

Translation:

John is a sociopath who demands people cow-tow to his brainwashed style
of communist simplicity.

he doesn't know,

I already answered dimwit. Claim I dont know all you like only proves
how much of sociopath you are.
and though a little research on the web

would provide the answers quite easily, he's too lazy to do even that,
so he keeps up with the bluffing and the charges of 'sociopath'.

Your whole response is a lie, liar. Get a life.

If entropy is so simple surely you can explain these things?

All matter and energy relationships in the entire universe show a
reliance on entropy. If you disagree with that statement, its not my
fault you don't understand entropy.

Answer the questions Mr Poseur! Never mind the buffing and posturing.

And besides as is the techique of egotistical teachers and educators -
ask trick questions and when the students can't answer it, laugh and
snicker at how dumb they are. Utterly peurile bunch.

Those aren't trick questions.

I never said they were 'trick' questions,

You clearly implied just that.

Clearly not sociopath but if you insist, I'll agree with you.

Now answer the questions little metaphysical mousie! You wandered out
into scientific territory with your claim that entropy is a simple
concept. Now the cat's got you!

Nice clip from a webpage,

Sociopath doesn't like to be wrong. That was my explanation, no clip
necessary.

*****!

Sociopath tells me to get the answer off the web and when I don't tells
me I am a liar, and when I do, tells me I am a poseur. More mind games
from this twisted peurile lost soul. He wouldn't know the difference
between honesty and ***** because he wallows in *****.

but that won't help you here. You've been

caught off your metaphysical grounds where you can get away with such
bluff and bluster. Now WHERE does the 2nd law apply?

Sociopath seems to think he understands entropy and thermodynamics. Too
bad that is all he understands about this universe.

And you're ever-so-much wiser! Or are you?
How is it you can't give simple yes or no answers to questions?

Why dont you explain how the second law of entropy forced Hawking to
admit he was wrong about black holes there 'know it all'? I bet you
can't because you are the poseur as is every sociopath on the web and in
the real world.

No, that's you Mad-who-is-no-scientist. Now never mind the red
herring. You're not qualified to pontificate on the 2nd law, never
mind the 4th! Answer the questions!

You haven't got a clue do you sociopath?

If I haven't a clue, howcome it's you who won't answer?

I already did but you can keep saying that I didn't again and again
which doesn't change the facts, and prove to everyone reading this
thread how terrible your insanity truly is. Go ahead prove you are
sociopath some more and psychobabble another response.
.

User: "Tom"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	17 Aug 2004 07:15:03 PM

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:QVtUc.1248$SR4.645@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Sociopath spews some more psycho babble.

Ignorant fool running out of things to post.
<snip>
.

User: "Mad Scientist"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	18 Aug 2004 02:32:08 AM

Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:QVtUc.1248$SR4.645@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Sociopath spews some more psycho babble.

Ignorant fool running out of things to post.

<snip>

Blasphemer thinks he has a case when all he proves is more insanity on
usenet.
.

User: "Tom"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	18 Aug 2004 08:07:24 AM

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:YBDUc.420962$rCA1.286221@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:QVtUc.1248$SR4.645@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Sociopath spews some more psycho babble.

Ignorant fool running out of things to post.

<snip>

Blasphemer thinks he has a case when all he proves is more insanity on
usenet.

Yes and you prove that case with every post you make.
.

User: "Dave Oldridge"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	18 Aug 2004 04:57:13 AM

Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in news:YBDUc.420962
$rCA1.286221@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:

Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:QVtUc.1248$SR4.645@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Sociopath spews some more psycho babble.

Ignorant fool running out of things to post.

<snip>

Blasphemer thinks he has a case when all he proves is more insanity on
usenet.

Look in mirror. Repeat the above.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
.

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	17 Aug 2004 06:26:31 PM

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:30:40 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:

3. Atoms combining under heat and pressure to form more complex atoms

Another way of stating the exact same thing in your ridiculous number 2.

Which you didn't answer.

Sociopath asks rhetorical questions that have only *one* answer.

You have no idea whether I'm sociopathic or not, nor any way of
finding out.

One can see it in your posts quite easily.

You would have to see all my posts, every one I've ever written, to
make such a diagnosis. Just because I treat you with the contempt you
deserve doesn't mean I treat everyone like that.

That question has only one correct answer. Here, I'll give it to you
in multiple choice form:
(a) yes
(b) no

Pick one.

Poor sociopath, doesn't comprehend the basic english in my responses and
only further proves his insanity

Pick one coward! You know what's going to happen if you do, don't you?
Either choice gets one of your arguments or another shot down!
You've committed yourself on a testable scientific issue and now
you're trapped.

4. Atoms spontaneously combining to form molecules

Again you ducked the question.

Hardly. You ducked the answer.

Yes or no? C'mon chicken! Yes or no?

Is that the sort of bluffing that

caused teachers to be surprised and indignant when you tried to pass
such babble off as an answer?

More psycho babble from the brainwashed Communist evolutionist.

More bluff from the poseur. Yes or no?

Sociopath asks rhetorical questions which have only *one* answer

Yes or no. Come on wise guy. Never mind the metaphysical tapdancing...

Sociopaths demands *one* to a question, when he claims to understand
science, he should know that quantum physics says there is no *one* answer.

Now he's bluffing with quantum physics! Any red-herring when you're
trapped huh Maddie? Yes or no Maddie?

5. Molecules spontaneously combining to form complex molecules

Again just another way of stating what you state above. Really peurile
of you.

Just answer the questions Mad. Never mind substituting insult for
honest response. For the last five questions a simple yes or no answer
will suffice.

I already did answer, and I won't play your *one answer* psychopathology.

No you didn't answer. You bluffed, and I'm not buying it anymore than
that teacher you never forgave for humiliating you.

and though a little research on the web

would provide the answers quite easily, he's too lazy to do even that,
so he keeps up with the bluffing and the charges of 'sociopath'.

Your whole response is a lie, liar. Get a life.

Yes or no Mr Poseur.

Sociopath seems to think he understands entropy and thermodynamics. Too
bad that is all he understands about this universe.

And you're ever-so-much wiser! Or are you?
How is it you can't give simple yes or no answers to questions?

Answer my questions first!

If I haven't a clue, howcome it's you who won't answer?

I already did

No you didn't. You tried to bluff it out with paragraphs of
bullfeathers when all you needed to do was say yes or no.
## OK! Who put a stop payment on your reality check?
.

User: "Mad Scientist"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	18 Aug 2004 02:37:24 AM

What an insane moron this guy is.
John Ings wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:30:40 GMT, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland>
wrote:

3. Atoms combining under heat and pressure to form more complex atoms

Another way of stating the exact same thing in your ridiculous number 2.

Which you didn't answer.

Sociopath asks rhetorical questions that have only *one* answer.

You have no idea whether I'm sociopathic or not, nor any way of
finding out.

One can see it in your posts quite easily.

You would have to see all my posts, every one I've ever written, to
make such a diagnosis. Just because I treat you with the contempt you
deserve doesn't mean I treat everyone like that.

That question has only one correct answer. Here, I'll give it to you
in multiple choice form:
(a) yes
(b) no

Pick one.

Poor sociopath, doesn't comprehend the basic english in my responses and
only further proves his insanity

4. Atoms spontaneously combining to form molecules

Again you ducked the question.

Hardly. You ducked the answer.

Yes or no? C'mon chicken! Yes or no?

Chicken is what you prove yourself to be.

Is that the sort of bluffing that

caused teachers to be surprised and indignant when you tried to pass
such babble off as an answer?

More psycho babble from the brainwashed Communist evolutionist.

More bluff from the poseur. Yes or no?

Sociopath asks rhetorical questions which have only *one* answer

Yes or no. Come on wise guy. Never mind the metaphysical tapdancing...

Sociopaths demands *one* to a question, when he claims to understand
science, he should know that quantum physics says there is no *one* answer.

Now he's bluffing with quantum physics! Any red-herring when you're
trapped huh Maddie? Yes or no Maddie?

This guy wouldn't know science if he was hit on the head with
Shrodinger's cat!

5. Molecules spontaneously combining to form complex molecules

Again just another way of stating what you state above. Really peurile
of you.

Just answer the questions Mad. Never mind substituting insult for
honest response. For the last five questions a simple yes or no answer
will suffice.

I already did answer, and I won't play your *one answer* psychopathology.

No you didn't answer. You bluffed, and I'm not buying it anymore than
that teacher you never forgave for humiliating you.

You aren't very good at posing, because your idiocy is showing through
in all your posts.

and though a little research on the web

would provide the answers quite easily, he's too lazy to do even that,
so he keeps up with the bluffing and the charges of 'sociopath'.

Your whole response is a lie, liar. Get a life.

Yes or no Mr Poseur.

Sociopath seems to think he understands entropy and thermodynamics. Too
bad that is all he understands about this universe.

And you're ever-so-much wiser! Or are you?
How is it you can't give simple yes or no answers to questions?

I already explained that sociopath.

Answer my questions first!

I already answered them. Your turn but you can't because you are a fake
and a fraud and most likely a chicken ***** as well.

If I haven't a clue, howcome it's you who won't answer?

I already did

No you didn't. You tried to bluff it out with paragraphs of
bullfeathers when all you needed to do was say yes or no.

## OK! Who put a stop payment on your reality check?

Whatever you say sociopath.
.

User: "Tom"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	18 Aug 2004 08:06:21 AM

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:UGDUc.420963$rCA1.352397@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

What an insane moron this guy is.

Yes you are.
.

User: "John Ings"
Title: Re: What do Scientists think about evolution?	18 Aug 2004 08:03:15 AM