Evolution? 'It's not only a theory. It is a historical fact, evident and provable.'
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
(1 of 2)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/evolution_evident_provable.htm
- - -
Excerpts:
.... 'The proof comes from fossils, geographical
distribution, genetics' ... Links/excerpts to some
helful information regarding evolution's past/
present/future, science, and how the scientific
method is a superior methodology when it
comes to open-minded search for verity ...
- - -
(2 of 2)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/evolution_evident_provable_2.htm
- - -
Excerpts:
Charles Darwin ... Sir David Attenborough
discusses how Darwin helped shape his career
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz7U4k522Pg
Sir David Attenborough's View on Science
and Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfa88SeNohY
.... What evidence supports evolution through
natural selection? ... Why Evolution Is True ...
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
ilbe...@gmail.com
wrote:
> - - -
> (1 of 2)
> - - -
>
> Excerpts:
>
> .... 'The proof comes from fossils, geographical
> distribution, genetics' ... Links/excerpts to some
> helful information regarding evolution's past/
> present/future, science, and how the scientific
> method is a superior methodology when it
> comes to open-minded search for verity ...
>
> - - -
> (2 of 2)
> - - -
>
> Excerpts:
>
> Charles Darwin ... Sir David Attenborough
> discusses how Darwin helped shape his career
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz7U4k522Pg
> Sir David Attenborough's View on Science
> and Religion
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfa88SeNohY
> .... What evidence supports evolution through
> natural selection? ... Why Evolution Is True ...
>
> - - -
>
> ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
>
> ~~~
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
> (Freethinking Realist Exploring
> Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
> ~~~
Pond Scum to Human Being macro evolution is a debunked 19th century
theory , it flies in the face of now modern scientific laws, a huge
amount of evolutionists are tired of the charade, and over 700 of the
worlds top PHD scientists have such problems with it that they dont
have faith in it : www.dissentfromdarwin.org and
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html . You nor anyone else,
truly has enough faith to think accidental chemicals brought forth
accidental Pond Scum which brought forth an accidental Human Being
that has a brain more complex than any computer and 60 major systems
that ALL work together, that ALL are required...for we can live
daily. It is nothing but a desperate attempt to go on denying the
personal Creator whom one doesnt want to exist due to personal moral
implications / poor lifestyle choices / utter pride to keep oneself
on the throne instead of the Creators rightful place. Please refrain
from playing the charade because youre not convincing anyone ; all
atheists know that its a force-fed philosophy without a shred of
scientific evidence...and even popular Evolutionists agree. Get on
board the Creation Train and get to know our personal Creator instead
of denying him all your life . You wont be sorry you did.
ilbe...@gmail.com
> (1 of 2)
> - - -
>
> Excerpts:
>
> .... 'The proof comes from fossils, geographical
> distribution, genetics' ... Links/excerpts to some
> helful information regarding evolution's past/
> present/future, science, and how the scientific
> method is a superior methodology when it
> comes to open-minded search for verity ...
>
> - - -
> (2 of 2)
> - - -
>
> Excerpts:
>
> Charles Darwin ... Sir David Attenborough
> discusses how Darwin helped shape his career
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz7U4k522Pg
> Sir David Attenborough's View on Science
> and Religion
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfa88SeNohY
> .... What evidence supports evolution through
> natural selection? ... Why Evolution Is True ...
>
> - - -
>
> ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
>
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
> (Freethinking Realist Exploring
> Expressive Liberty, Openness,
> ~~~
"
Davej
> On Jul 2, 6:16 pm, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <pro...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
> > http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/evolution_evident_provabl...
> > http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/science/evolution_evident_provabl...
>
>
> Pond Scum to Human Being macro evolution is a debunked 19th century
> theory , it flies in the face of now modern scientific laws, a huge
> amount of evolutionists are tired of the charade, and over 700 of the
> worlds top PHD scientists have such problems with it that they dont
"...Only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a
valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent
of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the
United States, which has more creationists than any other
industrialized country."
From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
On Jul 2, 6:16 pm, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
> � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - �
>
> ~~~
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
> (Freethinking Realist Exploring
> Expressive Liberty, Openness,
> Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)"
> ~~~
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote ...
--------- All this sounds so liberating ... only its
for the expressed purpose of engaging in hedonism
and narcissism which is permissable from refusing to
admit a personal Theistic Creator is real . Its NOT
all about You...its always been about the Creator
and his glory.
- - - end IlBeBauck reply - - -
My reply:
You mentioned hedonism and narcissm:
hedonism -- doctrine that pleasure or
happiness is the sole or chief good in
life
narcissm -- egoism, a doctrine that
individual self-interest is the actual
motive of all conscious action or
egocentrism, concerned with the
individual rather than society
I don't consider myself a hedonist or
a narcissist, and if you're actually inter-
ested in my philosophical points of
view, from the standpoint of support
or from the standpoint of skepticism,
reference the following:
Faith in Pro-Humanism
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/prohumanism.htm
Feel free to compare this faith with traditional
faiths and in so doing, if you must be 'of faith',
choose the faith that mates to the essence of
that which is the best within you.
FREELOVER Principles
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/freelover.htm
For me, personally, disbelief in blind faith, religions,
and imaginary beings led me to ponder what, free
of the burdens of blind faith, I wanted to be about,
leading me to a definition of my personal beliefs
based on FREELOVER principles.
As for happiness and pleasure, I think
there's far too little of it in this life, and
I support increasing that in reasonable
ways. As for individual self-interest, I
perceive that's heavily involved in both
the way humans behave, and in the way
humans are taught to behave, with many
being seduced or threatened to address
their needs (and oft-times, those seduc-
tions and threats are provided by reli-
gions) by responding to the seductions
with 'Yes' and to the 'threats' with doing
what they're told they have to do to mini-
mize or eliminate the risk that the threats
will be actualized.
My reply to IlBeBauck and others who
are shy about discussing their doubts and
disbelief in the religious realm, a realm
which is typically foisted upon children as
ultimate reality (you know, the so-called
God that children are oft-times taught loves
them and will care for them eternally if only
they turn off their doubting and questioning
minds & hearts, and if they don't, well, see
assorted religions for all the threats they
claim their so-called God is into):
We'd be better off without religion
(032707)
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/disbelief/better_off_without_religion.htm
"... Look at the period in which liberty of con-
science was at last secured in Christian Europe
- the 16th and 17th centuries. It was an excep-
tionally bloody epoch: millions died as a result
of a single church's reluctance to give up its
control over what people can be allowed to
think and believe. The famous Treaty of West-
phalia in 1648 accepted religious differences
as the only way of preventing religion from
being an endless source of war. ..."
- - -
� - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - �
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)"
~~~
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
A DonExodus video debunking this standard creationist lie. And he's a
Christian who is embarrassed by these liars.
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
On Jul 2, 6:16 pm, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <prohu...@cableone.net>
wrote ...
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote ...
Pond Scum to Human Being macro evolution is a debunked 19th century
theory , it flies in the face of now modern scientific laws, a huge
amount of evolutionists are tired of the charade, and over 700 of the
worlds top PHD scientists have such problems with it that they dont
have faith in it : www.dissentfromdarwin.org and
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html . You nor anyone else,
truly has enough faith to think accidental chemicals brought forth
accidental Pond Scum which brought forth an accidental Human Being
that has a brain more complex than any computer and 60 major systems
that ALL work together, that ALL are required...for we can live
daily. It is nothing but a desperate attempt to go on denying the
personal Creator whom one doesnt want to exist due to personal moral
implications / poor lifestyle choices / utter pride to keep oneself
on the throne instead of the Creators rightful place. Please refrain
from playing the charade because youre not convincing anyone ; all
atheists know that its a force-fed philosophy without a shred of
scientific evidence...and even popular Evolutionists agree. Get on
board the Creation Train and get to know our personal Creator instead
of denying him all your life . You wont be sorry you did.
- - - end IlBeBauck reply - - -
My reply:
Please iterate what you are referring to when you
mention the "worlds top PHD scientists", and also,
please refer to the overwhelming confirmation of
evolution by the overwhelming majority of the
world's top scientists, as referenced in the following:
- - -
1998 survey regarding disbelief, doubt/agnosticism,
or belief regarding a personal God
Leading scientists still reject God
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
- - -
Summary of some of the results:
In 1998, 72.2% of National Academy of Sciences
members have disbelief in a personal God.
In 1998, 20.8% of National Academy of Sciences
members have doubt or agnosticism in a personal
God.
In 1998, 7.0% of National Academy of Sciences
members have belief in a personal God.
- - -
So, to sum it up, 93.0% of National Academy of
Sciences members have disbelief, doubt, or agnosti-
cism regarding a personal God.
- - -
� - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - � - �
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Ken
wrote: - -
>
> My reply:
>
> Please iterate what you are referring to when you
> mention the "worlds top PHD scientists", and also,
> please refer to the overwhelming confirmation of
> evolution by the overwhelming majority of the
> world's top scientists, as referenced in the following:
>
> - - -
CCped from elsewhere.................
It's useless to enter into any type of discussion with this fuckwit.
I've seen it all before
Dave loves to argue, usually by first posing a question or making a
ridiculous statement (A) like Adam and Eve is not a myth, man
actually
lived with dinosaurs, the Earth is 6000 years old, or there is no
proof an asteroid was responsible for extinctions, all designed only
to draw you into his web, but if one directs a reply to the first
issue of (A), the subject will change (as in "Yes, but what about
B,C,D and E") and never addressing your reply to subject (A)
Any attempt to cover B,C,D, or E is doomed to failure, as he then
directs the discussion into another direction.
He'd used this exact same tactic with me and many others.
The best strategy, just not play his game
Hewy
Hewy
- -
>
> My reply:
>
> Please iterate what you are referring to when you
> mention the "worlds top PHD scientists", and also,
> please refer to the overwhelming confirmation of
> evolution by the overwhelming majority of the
> world's top scientists, as referenced in the following:
>
> - - -
-
Ben Kaufman
The fact that he willfully ignores that the overwhelming majority of scientists
accept evolution as fact is proof that it is a waste of time to reason with
Creationists.
Ben
Christopher A. Lee
That's a bad argument - it's a combination of ad populum and
authority.
A far better one is that its well understood mechanisms have led to
medical and other sciences and technologies which simply wouldn't work
let alone exist without it.
http://galtroarc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/1218doonesbury_lg.gif
>Ben
Bill M
some of it's planets because he claims there is no evidence of the beginning
of living things.
Then he claims his God did it and totally fails to provide ANY objective
verifiable evidence that his God actually exists!
He is an all to typical religionist that believes what he WANTS to believe
without ANY objective verifiable evidence.
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7267cc4a-aa4f-4a26...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Ben Kaufman
wrote:
Not in this case. He is the one claiming the authority "over 700 of the
world's top PHD scientists"
>
>A far better one is that its well understood mechanisms have led to
>medical and other sciences and technologies which simply wouldn't work
>let alone exist without it.
>
And they willfully ignore that too.
>http://galtroarc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/1218doonesbury_lg.gif
>
>
>>Ben
They ignore that too.
Ben Kaufman
>A typical religionists. He denies the evolution of the Universe and life on
>some of it's planets because he claims there is no evidence of the beginning
>of living things.
>
>Then he claims his God did it and totally fails to provide ANY objective
>verifiable evidence that his God actually exists!
>
>He is an all to typical religionist that believes what he WANTS to believe
>without ANY objective verifiable evidence.
Give him a little credit, I bet he doesn't believe in Zeus or Hobbits.
Ben
Matt Silberstein
Lee <ca...@optonline.net> in
<n7ms4516o4sfvmor1...@4ax.com> wrote:
Actually not. Appeal to appropriate authority is not a fallacy.
"Doctor X says do Y" is a fallacy if Y has to do with how to fix your
car, it is not a fallacy if Y is a medical issue and even less so if Y
is what to do for your heart and Dr. X is a cardiologist. Same for the
issue of number since not all experts agree and the audience is
usually not made up of experts. It would be a stronger claim to say
that the overwhelming vast majority of scientists *in a relevant
field* accept evolution as fact *and theory*.
>A far better one is that its well understood mechanisms have led to
>medical and other sciences and technologies which simply wouldn't work
>let alone exist without it.
>
>http://galtroarc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/1218doonesbury_lg.gif
>
>
>>Ben
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Sla#s
<SNIP>>
>
> "...Only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a
> valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent
> of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the
> United States, which has more creationists than any other
> industrialized country."
But they are not "relevant scientists"! They are mathematicians, chemists,
etc.
Their argument is a bit like said mathematician saying "I don't know how an
airplane says in the air" - It is not their field so why the hell should we
value their opinion?
Slatts
John Locke
>accidental Pond Scum...
>
..you appear to be a bit confused. What you're attempting to address
is a process known as abiogenists...not evolutuion.
And there wasn't any pond scum...there was however single cell
prokaryotes.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
More like "I don't know how an airplane stays in the air therefore it
doesn't".
>Slatts