"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:QafCf.605$635.10350@news.uswest.net...

Yes. Evolution and statistics don't see eye to eye.

But then the
statistical objections may not cover the narrow field of evolution,
but be more concerned with evolutionary abiogenesis and speciation
which both are purely speculative.

The average person can see and understand cross-breeding producing
evolutionary changes, but a different colour and size of dog does not
make for another species.

In fact nature abhors cross-breeding among
species,

and makes such attempts infertile as a rule.

All other
methods nature could have used to create viable new species have been
tried by countless scientists, and all have failed.

Till evolutionists come up with scientific, meaning reproducible
proof
of natural speciation,

evolution as a whole remains at best mere
speculation.

"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:QafCf.605$635.10350@news.uswest.net...

The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is some
sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order
to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would
need a religion whicih operated on an intellectual level similar to that
of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and
Rastifari.
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in
evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to
believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's
basically ignorant.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume
nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they
are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to
defend or explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter,
Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that
evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a
choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F
for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or a big scarlet letter I
for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the
traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad,
and The Ugly:
http://bearfabrique.org/evorants/evoUltimatestupidity.html

Yes. Evolution and statistics don't see eye to eye. But then the
statistical objections may not cover the narrow field of evolution, but be
more concerned with evolutionary abiogenesis and speciation which both are
purely speculative.
The average person can see and understand cross-breeding producing
evolutionary changes, but a different colour and size of dog does not make
for another species. In fact nature abhors cross-breeding among species, and
makes such attempts infertile as a rule. All other methods nature could have
used to create viable new species have been tried by countless scientists,
and all have failed.
Till evolutionists come up with scientific, meaning reproducible proof
of natural speciation, evolution as a whole remains at best mere
speculation.

"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:QafCf.605$635.10350@news.uswest.net...

The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is some
sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order
to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would
need a religion whicih operated on an intellectual level similar to that
of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and
Rastifari.
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in
evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to
believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's
basically ignorant.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume
nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they
are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to
defend or explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter,
Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that
evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a
choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F
for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or a big scarlet letter I
for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the
traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad,
and The Ugly:
http://bearfabrique.org/evorants/evoUltimatestupidity.html

Yes. Evolution and statistics don't see eye to eye. But then the
statistical objections may not cover the narrow field of evolution, but be
more concerned with evolutionary abiogenesis and speciation which both are
purely speculative.
The average person can see and understand cross-breeding producing
evolutionary changes, but a different colour and size of dog does not make
for another species. In fact nature abhors cross-breeding among species, and
makes such attempts infertile as a rule. All other methods nature could have
used to create viable new species have been tried by countless scientists,
and all have failed.
Till evolutionists come up with scientific, meaning reproducible proof
of natural speciation, evolution as a whole remains at best mere
speculation.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is
some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't.
In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and
religion, you would need a religion whicih operated on an intellectual
level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible
candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief
in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming
not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic.
It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you
assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and
that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of
having to defend or explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God,
St. Peter, Muhammed...

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that
evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with
a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for
Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or a big
scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with
one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The
Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

http://bearfabrique.org/evorants/evoUltimatestupidity.html

Oh great, so you're a Holdenite. Ted believes that Jupiter hovered over
the earth and lessened the "felt effect of gravity" and so lizards grew
into giant dinosaurs.

But if you'd like to post some evidence of this conflict between math
and heritable genetic change in reproducing populations over time, I'd
like to see it.

Ted believes that Jupiter hovered over the earth and lessened the
"felt effect of gravity" and so lizards grew into giant dinosaurs.