Atheism soon a thing of the past

[Jahnu]

Nota Bene Header

October 24,�2012

Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?

Doug Axe is surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any
claim that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating
to the position that its power is a thing of the past.

Continue Reading . . .
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=5M6hCoeQBUB7TMB9Xj88Vw

The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching
Implications

A highly enriched soup of proteins and nucleic acids will never form a
functional cell, even if lipid bilayer membranes were provided to help
these materials become organized.

Continue reading . . .
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=DHvYDLqabbte4U9lJ0Gy4Q

Cambrian Explosion: It's Just Physics

Dr. Stuart Newman's "new theory of early animal evolution" says that
animal body plans arose from layers and cavities that spontaneously
emerged in clusters of cells. Since similar cavities form in some
nonliving materials, physics alone brought it all about.

Continue reading . . .
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=UNjROmHeirqdbOnrRObpwg

Onward and Upward with Peer Review �

It seems the idea of peer review as the "gold standard" of science
remains a puffed-up myth. The mathematics journal Advances in Pure
Mathematics�provisionally accepted for publication a proposed
journal article that had been randomly generated -- a mishmash of
important-sounding nonsense.

Continue reading . . .
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=BqVAXICXq2RCtAbe6GawfA

Upcoming Events

October 27, 2012
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=jaR8fOEtlilypkCKw4BPYQ

��
Christians and Culture: Proposing a Better Way
Northwest University - Kirkland, WA
November 15 - 17, 2012
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=tomFPMi4qK71scM8my1QMA

�
Reason for Hope Apologetics Conference
Evangelical Philosophical Society -�Pelwaukee, WI

In This Issue

Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
#are-we-reaching-a-consensus

The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching
Implications
#the-humpty-dumpty-effect-a-revolutionary

Cambrian Explosion: It's Just Physics
#cambrian-explosion-it-s-just-physics

Onward and Upward with Peer Review
#onward-and-upward-with-peer-review

Upcoming Events
#upcoming-events

�




ID The Future
Featured Podcast

IDTF logo image

#

Intelligently Designed Nanotechnology

IDTF green play button
�

http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=z27OAuWaEmeXMsXDFpzSyw

�Click here to listen

http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=ZOuDZ2cijUN2R9AaSKOmOg

�




Follow the CSC

Facebook
�

Twitter
�

YouTube
�

RSS

http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=Qv4XCiFLqe5CeykQyOactw
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=sC5ItQB0TA3i-LwI_quqyw
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=3Z0tkuHYVih1yHyBOB3U_g
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=hK91Ds3pfk2kpi8nkuES1A

�




�

The Magician's Twin

http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=F0MVB9nNzoD-WE7hCZ83jA

Visit C.S. Lewis Web�to download a free
chapter from
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=S4_dc5SvsX-Y7LfTkirN2g

The Magician's Twin.

Have a look at my art -

http://youtu.be/2uRbsf9Vzg8
http://youtu.be/ZGLKqQP3Uv8
http://youtu.be/J78fiLgE62E
http://youtu.be/Nd1VXm5CF1M
http://youtu.be/jeMO6UxDGag
http://youtu.be/zg2ks9py2-c

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
http://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com> wrote:
> Nota Bene Header
>
> October 24, 2012
>
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>
> Doug Axe is surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any
> claim that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating
> to the position that its power is a thing of the past.

Evolution: A theory in crisis!

For 150 years!

It'll be dead!

Any day now!

Just wait and see!

Aaaaaaaaaany second now....

It's just gonna keel over!

The evolutionary theory preferrs kippin' on it's back! Beatiful Plumage!

--
__ _ | Misfortune seldom intrudes upon the wise man; his greatest and
(_ |_) | highest interests are directed by reason throughout the course
__)|_) | of life. -- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>Evolution: A theory in crisis!
>
>For 150 years!
>
>It'll be dead!
>
>Any day now!

Actually, the idea was never alive except in the minds of atheists. It
was, it is and it will remain wishful thinking.

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

[hypatiab7]

On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:58:07 PM UTC-4, Jahnu wrote:
> Nota Bene Header
>
> October 24, 2012
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>
> Doug Axe is surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any claim that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating
> to the position that its power is a thing of the past.

Doug Axe (whoever the hell he is) is a liar.

>
> Continue Reading . . .
>
> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=5M6hCoeQBUB7TMB9Xj88Vw
>
> The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications
>
> A highly enriched soup of proteins and nucleic acids will never form a functional cell, even if lipid bilayer membranes were provided to help
> these materials become organized.

You don't even know what that means, Jesper.
Try again.

> Intelligently Designed Nanotechnology
>
> IDTF green play button
>
> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=z27OAuWaEmeXMsXDFpzSyw
>
>  Click here to listen
>
> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=ZOuDZ2cijUN2R9AaSKOmOg

> Follow the CSC
>

> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=Qv4XCiFLqe5CeykQyOactw
>
> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=sC5ItQB0TA3i-LwI_quqyw
>
> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=3Z0tkuHYVih1yHyBOB3U_g
>
> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=hK91Ds3pfk2kpi8nkuES1A
>
> The Magician's Twin
>
> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=F0MVB9nNzoD-WE7hCZ83jA
>
> Visit C.S. Lewis Web to download a free
> chapter from
>
> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=S4_dc5SvsX-Y7LfTkirN2g
>
> The Magician's Twin.
>

As ever the naughty Krishnaite is just copying
nonsense from a creationist website that he understands so poorly that he left in a bunch of
totally unnecessary instructions.

[Tim]

"hypatiab7" wrote in message
news:f0b07a63-416b-41a7...@googlegroups.com...

>
As ever the naughty Krishnaite is just copying
nonsense from a creationist website that he understands so poorly that he
left in a bunch of
totally unnecessary instructions.

-----------

What can you expect from someone who looks like this:

http://www.iskcon.dk/Forsider/8.2004/8.2004.htm

[Yap]

On Oct 25, 11:58 am, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
> Nota Bene Header
>
> October 24, 2012
>
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>
> Doug Axe is surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any
> claim that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating
> to the position that its power is a thing of the past.
>

> Continue Reading . . .http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=5M6hCoeQBUB7TMB9Xj88Vw

>
> The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching
> Implications
>
> A highly enriched soup of proteins and nucleic acids will never form a
> functional cell, even if lipid bilayer membranes were provided to help
> these materials become organized.
>

> Continue reading . . .http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=DHvYDLqabbte4U9lJ0Gy4Q

>
> Cambrian Explosion: It's Just Physics
>
> Dr. Stuart Newman's "new theory of early animal evolution" says that
> animal body plans arose from layers and cavities that spontaneously
> emerged in clusters of cells. Since similar cavities form in some
> nonliving materials, physics alone brought it all about.
>

> Continue reading . . .http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=UNjROmHeirqdbOnrRObpwg

>
> Onward and Upward with Peer Review
>
> It seems the idea of peer review as the "gold standard" of science
> remains a puffed-up myth. The mathematics journal Advances in Pure
> Mathematics provisionally accepted for publication a proposed
> journal article that had been randomly generated -- a mishmash of
> important-sounding nonsense.
>

> Continue reading . . .http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=BqVAXICXq2RCtAbe6GawfA
>
> Upcoming Events
>
> October 27, 2012http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=jaR8fOEtlilypkCKw4BPYQ

>
>
> Christians and Culture: Proposing a Better Way
> Northwest University - Kirkland, WA

> November 15 - 17, 2012http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=tomFPMi4qK71scM8my1QMA

> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=Qv4XCiFLqe5CeykQyOactwhttp://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=sC5ItQB0TA3i-LwI_quqywhttp://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=3Z0tkuHYVih1yHyBOB3U_ghttp://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=hK91Ds3pfk2kpi8nkuES1A

>
>
>
>
>
> The Magician's Twin
>
> http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=F0MVB9nNzoD-WE7hCZ83jA
>
> Visit C.S. Lewis Web to download a free

> chapter fromhttp://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=S4_dc5SvsX-Y7LfTkirN2g

>
> The Magician's Twin.
>
> Have a look at my art -
>
> http://youtu.be/2uRbsf9Vzg8http://youtu.be/ZGLKqQP3Uv8http://youtu.be/J78fiLgE62Ehttp://youtu.be/Nd1VXm5CF1Mhttp://youtu.be/jeMO6UxDGaghttp://youtu.be/zg2ks9py2-c
>
> https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnuhttp://www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/

You are soon a thing of the past.

[fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk]

On 25 Oct, 04:58, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
> Nota Bene Header
>
> October 24, 2012
>
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?

What on earth has evolution got to do with atheism?

[linuxgal]

Atheists rely on the theory of descent with variation to explain the
diversity of life on Earth, in contrast to theists, who rely on Genesis
chapter 1.

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

[Les]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 03:11:19 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Oct 25, 11:58 am, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
>> Nota Bene Header
>>
>> October 24, 2012
>>
>> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?

<there be snippage>

>You are soon a thing of the past.

He is for most of us.


Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:16:25 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>Atheists rely on the theory of descent with variation to explain the
>diversity of life on Earth, in contrast to theists, who rely on Genesis
>chapter 1.

You really should get over your Xtian conception of God.


In the modern Coca-cola culture people are indoctrinated into
believing that sense-enjoyment will create happiness for them. Indeed,
sense-enjoyment is the only type of happiness the population is
educated in.

Lets analyze what bodily and mental happiness is all about. Sex is
regarded by most people to be the highest form of joy available in the
world. But sex-lust and sex-enjoyment is merely an attempt to escape
the suffering it is to be without sex. It's misery to live in forced
celibacy. Anyone who has reached puberty can testify to that. Or
eating. To eat is considered to be one of life's major enjoyments. But
actually to eat is just an attempt to escape the suffering of hunger.
People of the western culture don't know what it means to suffer from
famine, but it is a great suffering experience by many people of the
world.

And that's how it is with most of the enjoyment we seek and
experience. Eating, sleeping, mating, and defending, are the four
activities that are shared by all living entities. It is four urges
the human has in common with animals, birds, and all other living
entities on the planet. In the modern world it has become the foremost
goal to fulfill and satisfy these four animalistic urges. They have
been made the standard of happiness and enjoyment in life. What do we
do together with our loved ones, our family and friends? We eat,
sleep, mate, and defend. The entire civilization revolves around these
four principles. That is an animal civilization.

A human civilization is running on a whole other different set of
principles. As a human one is expected to have a higher standard than
the animals. One is expected to have higher goals in life than the
mere chasing after basic, animal urges. In the modern Coca-cola
culture entire industries have been created to fulfill these four
needs. Billions of tons of iron are extracted from the earth to make
pots, knives, forks, plates, serviettes, cups, and glasses etc. All of
it, just to eat. Then they have more sense in India. They are more
civilized. They eat with the fingers from a banana-leaf. In the west
it is scoffed at as primitive and back-wards, but actually it shows a
higher intelligence. No use for billions of tons of iron to make
knives and forks. No dish-washing afterwards. You just throw your
banana-leaf on the compost heap and wash your hands. How easy is that?

The fact is that the western civilization is over-consuming nature's
ressources. It is a greedy, animalistic culture, which ruins the
entire planet.

Anyway, the happiness that can be obtained by surrendering to
Krishna's enjoyment is so far superior to the happiness that one can
squeeze out of matter, that sex with the most bautiful women in the
world becomes like broken glass in comaprison.

And who is to be blamed for the fact that the modern world runs on
animal principles? Atheism. Atheism reduces the human being to nothing
more than an animal. But the human life-form is a unique opportunity
for the soul to realize his real, eternal indentity. That the soul
cannot realize in any other life-form. In other forms of life, the
soul is merely busy with eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. The
human form of life is a waste of time for the soul if it is not used
to to learn how to love Krishna.

The soul can relate to Krishna as his master, his father, his son, his
lover, or he can have a neutral relationship with Him. The point
being, that Krishna is the only center. He is the beloved of the soul.
When we love Krishna, Who is the root of everything, we automatically
love all His parts and parcels - all other living entities. It's like
watering a tree. One does not benefit the tree by pouring water on
every its every leaf and branch. Water is poured on the root. Then the
whole tree is nourished. In the same way all lving entities are
benefitted, when one loves and serves Krishna - th4e root of all
existence.

Krishna says:

This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all
secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct
perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of
religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed. (Bg. 9.2)

[Les]

Beats me, I was atheist (not theist) before I ever knew evolution was
taking place and that there were theories that explained how.

That knowledge came much later.

[raven1]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:27:58 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?

Among scientists? Unequivocally no.

[raven1]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:29:01 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:16:25 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Atheists rely on the theory of descent with variation to explain the
>>diversity of life on Earth, in contrast to theists, who rely on Genesis
>>chapter 1.
>
>
>You really should get over your Xtian conception of God.

Jesper, if you understand why atheists reject the Christian God, you
should also be able to understand why we reject yours.

>In the modern Coca-cola culture people are indoctrinated into
>believing that sense-enjoyment will create happiness for them. Indeed,
>sense-enjoyment is the only type of happiness the population is
>educated in.

That has fuck-all to do with Christianity, which encourages its
followers to shun such things, perhaps to an even greater degree than
your cult does. But you know nothing about any religions besides your
own, so it's understandable you'd miss that point.

<snip>

>What do we
>do together with our loved ones, our family and friends?

You? Nothing: you abandon them, you sociopathic little shit.

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:14:24 -0400, raven1 went:

<squawk squawk>


Krishna says:

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My
transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be. (Bg. 9.11)

Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic
views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their
fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.
(Bg. 9.12)

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:06:43 -0400, raven1 squawked:

>Among scientists? Unequivocally no.

"The cardinal error of science lies in shutting the Creator out of His
Creation." - Walter Russell, Doctor of Science

[raven1]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:02:43 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:06:43 -0400, raven1 squawked:
>
>>Among scientists? Unequivocally no.
>
>"The cardinal error of science lies in shutting the Creator out of His
>Creation." - Walter Russell, Doctor of Science

And first-class kook, one might add. BTW, the quote has nothing to do
with evolution, Jesper.

[raven1]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:01:12 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:14:24 -0400, raven1 went:
>
><squawk squawk>
>
>
>Krishna says:

"Wow, it's embarrassing that one of my devotees has to keep running
away from an atheist because he can't debate him".

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:06:42 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>And first-class kook, one might add. BTW, the quote has nothing to do
>with evolution, Jesper.

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful
Being." - Isaac Newton

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:08:02 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>"Wow, it's embarrassing that one of my devotees has to keep running
>away from an atheist because he can't debate him".

Is that what you think we are having here, a debate? hahaha :)

Srila Prabhupada says:

...you can understand by the one symptom. Just like pressing one rice
from the whole pot of the rice you can understand the rice is quite
all right, similarly, by one symptom you can understand who is a
rascal, by one symptom. What is that? Na mam prapadyante. He is not a
devotee of Krsna...? He's a rascal. That's all. Immediately you take
it without any consideration that anyone who is not devotee of Krsna,
who is not prepared to surrender to Krsna, he's a rascal. That's all.
This is our conclusion. Thank you very much.

Hare Krsna.

(Lecture, Bhagavad-gita 7.5) -- Nairobi, November 1, 1975

[raven1]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:39:40 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:08:02 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>"Wow, it's embarrassing that one of my devotees has to keep running
>>away from an atheist because he can't debate him".
>
>Is that what you think we are having here, a debate?

No: you keep running away because you're incapable of it.

[raven1]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:37:01 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:06:42 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>And first-class kook, one might add. BTW, the quote has nothing to do
>>with evolution, Jesper.
>
>"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only
>proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful
>Being." - Isaac Newton

That doesn't have anything to do with evolution either, Jesper.

[default]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com> wrote:
>> Nota Bene Header
>>
>> October 24, 2012
>>
>> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>>
>> Doug Axe is surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any
>> claim that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating
>> to the position that its power is a thing of the past.
>
>Evolution: A theory in crisis!
>
>For 150 years!
>
>It'll be dead!
>
>Any day now!
>
>Just wait and see!
>
>Aaaaaaaaaany second now....
>
>It's just gonna keel over!
>
>The evolutionary theory preferrs kippin' on it's back! Beatiful Plumage!

Hey, isn't that the same as the end of days?

I don't understand how the theory of evolution has anything to do with
atheism except tangentially. Perhaps if there was a god he/she aren't
creators but evolved? they aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

Judging from the bible, God the petulant almighty smiter, evolved into
the God of mercy and love somewhere along the way.

[John Locke]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:27:58 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>Nota Bene Header
>
>October 24,�2012
>
>Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>

Hardly. But it's pretty evidennt that you theists nutters would like
to reinvent nature to fit your Creationist agenda.

[Calvin Ramses]

Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com> wrote in
news:o2eh88tgjcbk6vcts...@4ax.com:

<gik>

As a flatulent human being, you don't have a panties to
deny those covered wagons

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:47:29 -0400, default wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
><sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com> wrote:
>>> Nota Bene Header
>>>
>>> October 24, 2012
>>>
>>> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?

The day we reach a consensus that gravity is past its prime, imbecile.

What a fucking moron.

>>> Doug Axe is surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any
>>> claim that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating
>>> to the position that its power is a thing of the past.

Why can't the seriously mentally ill, in-your-face, pig-ignorant moron
stop lying about observed facts that won't go away no matter how much
he wants them to?

>>Evolution: A theory in crisis!

Lie noted.

The theory of evolution is the explanation for the observed fact of
evolution..

Just like atomic theory is the explanation for atoms.

More than 150 years of solid research since Darwin have led to the
understanding of the mechanisms that cause it - which have been
developed into all sorts of spinoff sciences and technologies that
wouldn't even exist without it.

I take it the proven serial liar has heard of DNA and its applications
in forensics, biotech etc?

>>For 150 years!

Lie noted.

>>It'll be dead!
>>
>>Any day now!

Will DNA suddenly un-happen too?

Will all the bio-engineered vaccines etc disappear as if they had
never been produced?

Will all the bio-engineered agricultural products vanish overnight?

What's wrong with the moron?

>>Just wait and see!
>>
>>Aaaaaaaaaany second now....
>>
>>It's just gonna keel over!
>>
>>The evolutionary theory preferrs kippin' on it's back! Beatiful Plumage!

He is certifiably insane.

>Hey, isn't that the same as the end of days?
>
>I don't understand how the theory of evolution has anything to do with
>atheism except tangentially. Perhaps if there was a god he/she aren't
>creators but evolved? they aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

They're not.

But for some reason this moron comes here to lie about reality
including facts accepted by educated theists everywhere. And to turn
nasty when this is pointed out.

>Judging from the bible, God the petulant almighty smiter, evolved into
>the God of mercy and love somewhere along the way.

He may have believed in that one once - in fact he probably did, I
can't see an atheist suddenly believing in one of the Hindu gods but
none of the others.

The real question is, was he bat shit crazy before that happened, of
did that do it to him?

[BroilJAB]

Trump Report:
Obama grew up a Queer and his prey
was exclusively old white men.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:27:58 +0530, Jahnu wrote:

> Nota Bene Header
>
> October 24, 2012
>
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>

Nope, outside of America creationism is generally regarded as a joke. A
peculiarly American delusion.

> Doug Axe is surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any claim
> that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating to the
> position that its power is a thing of the past.

Never heard anyone scientifically literate say anything of the sort.

> The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching
> Implications
>
> A highly enriched soup of proteins and nucleic acids will never form a
> functional cell, even if lipid bilayer membranes were provided to help
> these materials become organized.
>

But then, I doubt anyone imagines it happened that way. Certainly no
biologist.

For a start evolving life "pulled the ladder up behind it" by releasing
huge amounts of corrosive oxygen.

[Srila Prabhupada]

Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com> wrote in
news:63lh885siv95m677j...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:13:31 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
> <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>Evolution: A theory in crisis!
>>
>>For 150 years!
>>
>>It'll be dead!
>>
>>Any day now!
>
> Actually,

What do we do together with our loved ones, our family and friends? We eat,
sleep, mate, slap leather, bend cutlery and re-offend. The entire buggery
hunt revolves around these four cookery instructions. That is an animal
buggery hunt.

Srila Prabhupada
Chant with me now:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKmA-u2x41U

[WangoTango]

In article <o2eh88tgjcbk6vcts...@4ax.com>,
Jahn...@gamail.com says...

>
> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>

> Doug Axe is surprised at how quickly Darwinists have abandoned any
> claim that evolution is a powerful process at work today, retreating
> to the position that its power is a thing of the past.

Wow, I guess I missed *THAT* meeting.
Last time I checked evolution was still going strong.

[Christopher A. Lee]

The proven serial liar has been given the late Sidney Fox's work
perhaps fifty years ago, as well as the current state of the art with
Jack Szostak's Nobel Prize winning research.

Fox..
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

I hope you like Beethoven!

[duke]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:16:25 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
>> On 25 Oct, 04:58, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
>>> Nota Bene Header
>>>
>>> October 24, 2012
>>>
>>> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>>
>> What on earth has evolution got to do with atheism?
>
>Atheists rely on the theory of descent with variation to explain the
>diversity of life on Earth, in contrast to theists, who rely on Genesis
>chapter 1.

Well, it IS the beginning.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <g6ei88lg6hs6sufk6...@4ax.com>,

I'm looking at a bio and I'm not seeing any training nor expertise in
biology.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <MPG.2af334d17...@news.east.earthlink.net>,

Doug Axe works for the Biologic Institute, which is part of the
Discovery Institution.

"Scientists affiliated with Biologic Institute are working from the idea
that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed. "

And this is who Jahnu thinks is a credible source?

<tee hee>

[default]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:58:30 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
<chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>The real question is, was he bat shit crazy before that happened, of
>did that do it to him?

In the case of J, I'll go with batshit crazy before. There's a
positive correlation between the religiously afflicted and low IQ. I
prefer to think that lower IQ people tend to become religious, rather
than becoming religious lowers IQ.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 25, 1:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:16:25 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
> >> On 25 Oct, 04:58, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
> >>> Nota Bene Header
>
> >>> October 24, 2012
>
> >>> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>
> >> What on earth has evolution got to do with atheism?
>
> >Atheists rely on the theory of descent with variation to explain the
> >diversity of life on Earth, in contrast to theists, who rely on Genesis
> >chapter 1.
>
> Well, it IS the beginning.
>
>

No.

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <78ai889ughrv4naam...@4ax.com>,
Jahn...@gamail.com says...

> Billions of tons of iron are extracted from the earth to make
> pots, knives, forks, plates, serviettes, cups, and glasses etc. All of
> it, just to eat. Then they have more sense in India. They are more
> civilized. They eat with the fingers from a banana-leaf. In the west
> it is scoffed at as primitive and back-wards, but actually it shows a
> higher intelligence.

Here in the west, we eat pizza as-is, no banana leaf
required. That makes us even smarter.


--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[default]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:29:01 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:16:25 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>wrote:

>
>>Atheists rely on the theory of descent with variation to explain the
>>diversity of life on Earth, in contrast to theists, who rely on Genesis
>>chapter 1.
>
>

>You really should get over your Xtian conception of God.
>
>

>In the modern Coca-cola culture people are indoctrinated into
>believing that sense-enjoyment will create happiness for them. Indeed,
>sense-enjoyment is the only type of happiness the population is
>educated in.
>

>Lets analyze what bodily and mental happiness is all about. Sex is
>regarded by most people to be the highest form of joy available in the
>world. But sex-lust and sex-enjoyment is merely an attempt to escape
>the suffering it is to be without sex. It's misery to live in forced
>celibacy. Anyone who has reached puberty can testify to that. Or
>eating. To eat is considered to be one of life's major enjoyments. But
>actually to eat is just an attempt to escape the suffering of hunger.
>People of the western culture don't know what it means to suffer from
>famine, but it is a great suffering experience by many people of the
>world.
>
>And that's how it is with most of the enjoyment we seek and
>experience. Eating, sleeping, mating, and defending, are the four
>activities that are shared by all living entities. It is four urges
>the human has in common with animals, birds, and all other living
>entities on the planet. In the modern world it has become the foremost
>goal to fulfill and satisfy these four animalistic urges. They have
>been made the standard of happiness and enjoyment in life. What do we

>do together with our loved ones, our family and friends? We eat,

>sleep, mate, and defend. The entire civilization revolves around these
>four principles. That is an animal civilization.
>
>A human civilization is running on a whole other different set of
>principles. As a human one is expected to have a higher standard than
>the animals. One is expected to have higher goals in life than the
>mere chasing after basic, animal urges. In the modern Coca-cola
>culture entire industries have been created to fulfill these four
>needs. Billions of tons of iron are extracted from the earth to make

>pots, knives, forks, plates, serviettes, cups, and glasses etc. All of
>it, just to eat. Then they have more sense in India. They are more
>civilized. They eat with the fingers from a banana-leaf. In the west
>it is scoffed at as primitive and back-wards, but actually it shows a

>higher intelligence. No use for billions of tons of iron to make
>knives and forks. No dish-washing afterwards. You just throw your
>banana-leaf on the compost heap and wash your hands. How easy is that?
>
>The fact is that the western civilization is over-consuming nature's
>ressources. It is a greedy, animalistic culture, which ruins the
>entire planet.
>
> Anyway, the happiness that can be obtained by surrendering to
>Krishna's enjoyment is so far superior to the happiness that one can
>squeeze out of matter, that sex with the most bautiful women in the
>world becomes like broken glass in comaprison.
>
>Krishna says:
>
>This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all
>secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct
>perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of
>religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed. (Bg. 9.2)

Secret of all secrets - only appeals to 7 year olds without the "magic
decoder ring."

What a bozo. Hindu culture probably has the sanest appreciation of
sex (assuming religion and sex have anything to do with one another).
yet you would tarnish (destroy) that?

Proves that you want control.... not enlightenment.

[Syd Maniac]

Well, he is saying what Jasper wants to hear...

--
PDW


Check out my comic blogs:

http://theincognitomultiverse.blogspot.com/

http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/

http://warintime.blogspot.com/

http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/

http://thearrakiscycle.blogspot.com/

[Smiler]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 05:51:56 -0400, Tim wrote:

>
>
> "hypatiab7" wrote in message
> news:f0b07a63-416b-41a7...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
> As ever the naughty Krishnaite is just copying nonsense from a creationist
> website that he understands so poorly that he left in a bunch of
> totally unnecessary instructions.
>
> -----------
>
> What can you expect from someone who looks like this:
>
> http://www.iskcon.dk/Forsider/8.2004/8.2004.htm

So that's what the moron looks like! The stupid face fits the
personality exactly.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:47:29 -0400, default wrote:

>I don't understand how the theory of evolution has anything to do with
>atheism except tangentially.

Allow me. ET is the silly, moronic creation myth of atheists. Didn't
you know that? You'd have to be a complete twat to come up with the
idea, that the world just up one day and create itself out of a bunch
of chemicals, for no good reason, and without intelligent
direction.This idiotic idea is completely contrary to observable
reality.

|Perhaps if there was a god he/she aren't
>creators but evolved? they aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

Why believe in something with out a shadow of a proof? Only atheists
do that.

>Judging from the bible, God the petulant almighty smiter, evolved into
>the God of mercy and love somewhere along the way.

Bible? hahaha :) You'd think God could do better than that...

Krishna says:

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything
rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread. (Bg 7.7)

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:34:57 -0400, raven1 squawked:

>That doesn't have anything to do with evolution either, Jesper.

Who gives a shit about evolution?

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:37:33 -0400, WankerTango wrote:

>Wow, I guess I missed *THAT* meeting.
>Last time I checked evolution was still going strong.

Nota Bene Header

October 3,�2012

Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis

Design inferences and design hypotheses both fall within the
scientific theory of intelligent design. At the same time, design
hypotheses function somewhat differently in that theory from design
inferences.

Continue Reading . . .
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=cH5VOsW0h9wnxmQ7nQq8kw

Introducing "Bi-Fi": The Biological Internet

Imagine storing books in DNA and sending them across a biological
Internet. It's already happening.

As we reported here�back in May, bioengineers are realizing that
DNA is an excellent storage medium. They've started writing books in
DNA letters.
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=mL16pOeVtchYFf3f9hbX1Q

Continue reading . . .
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=-kxQgOXjgOrFDdsloUfN9w

Why the Case for Junk DNA 2.0 Still Fails

Confronted with the ENCODE results that attribute "function" to at
least 80% of the genome, some Darwinist bloggers and critics of
intelligent design have established a defensive perimeter around the
precious idea of Junk DNA.�
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=GI5mLQIre375bm_Ga2NhNw

Continue reading . . .
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=efQTIvjh3x757TM7DUJy2A

Axe: Vive la Diff�rence �

Doug Axe SHO

http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=fdOIkB9q0D-JB8tTQHXHhg

Take a look at this little interview excerpt with Biologic Institute's
Douglas Axe, co-author of�Science and Human Origins.�
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=3OQF24dExUfpnd1O55xnlA

Continue reading . . .
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=RIuDrzC_lU5RV1LX4nN-7w

Upcoming Events

October 12 - 13, 2012
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=YUx3ONYa4FJtYlvf-iWDFg

��
Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?
Covenant Theological Seminary�- St. Louis, MO

October 19 - 20, 2012
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=xxoH7B_a6PzHZa06quAv9Q

�
Richards & Dembski at 19th Annual National Apologetics Conference
Sponsored by Southwest Evangelical Seminary - Charlotte, NC

October 22 - 24, 2012
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=vFe-pvqvHzYxcVKJF9J6mg

�
IV International Symposium on Darwinism Today
Mackenzie Presbyterian University - Sao Paolo, Brazil

In This Issue

Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis
#design-inference-vs-design-hypothesis

Introducing "Bi-Fi": The Biological Internet
#introducing-bi-fi-the-biological-internet

Why the Case for Junk DNA 2.0 Still Fails
#why-the-case-for-junk-dna-2-0-still-fails

Axe: Vive la Diff�rence
#axe-vive-la-difference

Upcoming Events
#upcoming-events

�




ID The Future
Featured Podcast

IDTF logo image

#

Pt. 3: David Berlinski at "Socrates in the City"

IDTF green play button
�

http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=xAUmprPVaB6oCstGeQGPNw

�Click here to listen

http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=Ktagk4ux4FAhmo40E-xJQw

�




Follow the CSC

Facebook
�

Twitter
�

YouTube
�

RSS

http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=74HpwjjIJYK9cLlMGa59jw
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=yWS1JWnyucsX8QjALcACjQ
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=MemLMjxjfDkaaASwk1gLlQ
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=NttHHQhVcWca8t8xdyeakg

�




�

Myth of Junk DNA

http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=jW93iSKKQ57g3OxJgE0Q_Q

Visit the Myth of Junk DNA website to learn more
and access our free resources.
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=4TfyEXiJ3rVmmDi6BOBOlw

�




Subscribe to Newsletters

http://support.discovery.org/site/CO?i=9tygAcEWoOO3BsVb4vlOPSpUHK6MEqYH&cid=1055

�

Join our network of financial supporters

Nota Bene is sent as an outreach of Discovery Institute's Center for
Science and Culture.If you appreciate this newsletter and the
scientific, scholarly, and educational work of the CSC, please
consider giving a donation today.

Donate Button
�
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=hXc8kC7uP7TM2QukDtR4Xg


�

Forward to a friend!
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=pv9JbHHfN4fMWRMGpssKiQ

This email was sent by csc...@discovery.org.
Update Profile/Email Address | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy.
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=Ua2mBtia-Z1PQc2jsrk8kg
http://support.discovery.org/site/CO?i=e4JOHSw8IlZW8rW_eBT0P7Pq9PGf0XmU&cid=1055
http://support.discovery.org/site/R?i=l0X5HR9oXBxLf51yEyr-lQ

�

Discovery Institute | 208 Columbia Street | Seattle | WA | 98104

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:16:25 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
>>> On 25 Oct, 04:58, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nota Bene Header
>>>>
>>>> October 24, 2012
>>>>
>>>> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>>>
>>> What on earth has evolution got to do with atheism?
>>
>> Atheists rely on the theory of descent with variation to explain the
>> diversity of life on Earth, in contrast to theists, who rely on Genesis
>> chapter 1.
>
> Well, it IS the beginning.

You said it yourself, Genesis 1-11 has no scientific basis.


--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:32:00 -0400, raven1 squawked:

>No: you keep running away because you're incapable of it.

hahaha :) Listen to the Birdman. If it wasn't so funny to kick his
pimply ass, he'd actually be a tragic figure...

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." - Fred
Hoyle, astrophysicist

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:52:03 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
> "hypatiab7" wrote in message
>
> news:f0b07a63-416b-41a7...@googlegroups.com...
>
> As ever the naughty Krishnaite is just copying
> nonsense from a creationist website that he understands so poorly that he left in a bunch of
> totally unnecessary instructions.

> What can you expect from someone who looks like this:
>
> http://www.iskcon.dk/Forsider/8.2004/8.2004.htm

Yeeks! He doesn't look so bad in the picture with the earphones, but what's with the dried mud all ovr his face and the stupid smile? Did his brains melt?

[hypatiab7]

Time to start ignoring Jahnu again, too. Sigh.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Friday, 26 October 2012 02:04:18 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:47:29 -0400, default wrote:
>
>
>
> >I don't understand how the theory of evolution has anything to do with
>
> >atheism except tangentially.
>
>
>
> Allow me. ET is the silly, moronic creation myth of atheists. Didn't
>
> you know that? You'd have to be a complete twat to come up with the
>
> idea, that the world just up one day and create itself out of a bunch
>
> of chemicals, for no good reason, and without intelligent
>
> direction.This idiotic idea is completely contrary to observable
>
> reality.

Darwin was, as it happens, a convinced Christian who delayed publishing his theory, apparently, because he was troubled about what it would do to faith, and to his own social status.

Science only really got going when it's practitioners stopped asking questions about purpose.

[MarkA]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:02:43 +0530, Jahnu wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:06:43 -0400, raven1 squawked:
>
>>Among scientists? Unequivocally no.
>
> "The cardinal error of science lies in shutting the Creator out of His
> Creation." - Walter Russell, Doctor of Science
>

The foundation of science is the idea that the natural world can be
explained without relying on supernatural beings. I wonder what Doctor of
Science Russell thinks the difference is between religion and science?
Perhaps he just wishes that religion had the respectability that science
has now.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[WangoTango]

In article <hlwdjsd2-F49CB6...@news.giganews.com>, hlwdjsd2
@NOSPAMgmail.com says...

Naturally.
The ultimate case of confirmation bias.

[WangoTango]

In article <MPG.2af36b337...@news.eternal-september.org>,
brian...@newsgroup.reply.only says...

I just have trained monkeys THROW the food into my mouth.
My hands never touch it at all. How smart does that make ME?

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <MPG.2af491ec2b65de1198b9e9
@news.east.earthlink.net>, Asga...@mindspring.com says...

> > Here in the west, we eat pizza as-is, no banana leaf
> > required. That makes us even smarter.
>
> I just have trained monkeys THROW the food into my mouth.
> My hands never touch it at all. How smart does that make ME?

That depends on whether the monkeys wash their hands first.

[WangoTango]

In article <MPG.2af4b7c32...@news.eternal-september.org>,
brian...@newsgroup.reply.only says...

DAMN!

[Smiler]

From the evidence of his posts here, almost certainly.

[Smiler]

'Untouched by human hand.'

[Tim]

"Jahnu" wrote in message news:0ruj881rc1ceqlmc5...@4ax.com...

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:32:00 -0400, raven1 squawked:

>No: you keep running away because you're incapable of it.

hahaha :) Listen to the Birdman. If it wasn't so funny to kick his
pimply ass, he'd actually be a tragic figure...

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." - Fred
Hoyle, astrophysicist

----------

Common sense says don't come to an atheist news group looking like this:

http://www.iskcon.dk/Forsider/8.2004/8.2004.htm

and expect to be taken seriously.

As to Mr. Hoyle's assertion:

http://tinyurl.com/953746j

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <k6b240$v10$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, a...@b.com
says...

> What can you expect from someone who looks like this:
>
> http://www.iskcon.dk/Forsider/8.2004/8.2004.htm

Isn't that one of the puppets from "Labyrinth"?

[Jahnu]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:14:21 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>The foundation of science is the idea that the natural world can be
>explained without relying on supernatural beings. I wonder what Doctor of
>Science Russell thinks the difference is between religion and science?
>Perhaps he just wishes that religion had the respectability that science
>has now.

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

[Jahnu]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:25:27 -0400, WangoTango
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Naturally.
>The ultimate case of confirmation bias.

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been
shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of
independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation
times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after
eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of
bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has
changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes
between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising
that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic
cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellular
organisms."

Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
thing in 2002:

"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
paleontologists, still has never been traced."

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin,
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin)

[Uncle Vic]

Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com> wrote in
news:o2eh88tgjcbk6vcts...@4ax.com:

> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?

Are We Reaching a Consensus that Gravity Is Past Its Prime?

Idiot.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
The meaning of life is to find your gift.
The purpose of life is to give it away.

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Jahnu]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:17:45 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>Are We Reaching a Consensus that Gravity Is Past Its Prime?
>
>Idiot.

Get an education, mindless dupe.

---but, but, but I saw it on Animan Planet. It must be true...

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal
tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the
various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The
father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record
first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is
therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology
Textbook

"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined
with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of
new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized
functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated
molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two
leading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

[fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk]

On 25 Oct, 12:16, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
> > On 25 Oct, 04:58, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
> >> Nota Bene Header
>
> >> October 24, 2012
>

> >> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>

> > What on earth has evolution got to do with atheism?
>
> Atheists rely on the theory of descent with variation to explain the
> diversity of life on Earth, in contrast to theists, who rely on Genesis
> chapter 1.

No. No belief in anything is required to be an atheist. the only
requirement is the *lack* of belief in any God. It would be perfectly
possible to be an atheist and reject the theory of evolution.
Equally, atheist could believe that God created life, but that
evolution then resulted in diversification from whatever forms God had
created, possibly that God sill created new life forms while evolution
was taking place. They could also believe that God caused evolution
to happen.

It is also not correct to say "in contrast to theists, who rely on
Genesis chapter 1". There are plenty of Jews and Christians who do not
accept the 'official' version of the creation, I'm not sure what the
Islamic official version is and whether it differs from the Christian
one. Theism does not equal Christianity; there are many theists who
do not follow any of the monotheistic, Abrahamic, religions. Whatever
belief you hold, or do not hold, you are in a minority.

I am sure that a majority of atheists believe in evolution. Whether a
majority of Christians actually believe in the Biblical account of
creation I cannot say; I am sure that many of them do not, but belief
in God, and belief in the theory of evolution are two quite different
things.

[Tim]

"duke" wrote in message news:3usi88pmlfa5hvu35...@4ax.com...

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:16:25 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>

wrote:

>fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
>> On 25 Oct, 04:58, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
>>> Nota Bene Header
>>>
>>> October 24, 2012
>>>
>>> Are We Reaching a Consensus that Evolution Is Past Its Prime?
>>
>> What on earth has evolution got to do with atheism?
>
>Atheists rely on the theory of descent with variation to explain the
>diversity of life on Earth, in contrast to theists, who rely on Genesis
>chapter 1.

Well, it IS the beginning.

------------------

Hey fatty, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim that
Geneis is true and that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. So now that
you've quite obviously eaten too much cake why not just shut up and go on a
diet.

[Jahnu]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 02:57:33 -0700 (PDT),someone blithered:

>No. No belief in anything is required to be an atheist.

hahaha :) You are kidding right? :) You believe in so many stupid
things, and without any proof, at all. You believe in abiogenese, you
believe in Darwin's theory, you believe that NASA went to the moon n
1969, you believe that a bunch of Arabs perpetrated 9/1 - all hogwash,
pure and simple - in fact, I could write a whole book of the nonsense
you believe in. You believe you are not in complete illusion. You
believe that you are an intelligent and thoughtful human being - all
of it, without a trace of proof.

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing --
they believe in anything." � -- �GK Chesterton

[Don Martin]

Don't put him down; don't cast blame:
Of such as he the mighty Vikings came!
I tell you this for what it's wurf:
Better he should chase a Smurf.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[raven1]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:40:44 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:34:57 -0400, raven1 squawked:
>
>>That doesn't have anything to do with evolution either, Jesper.
>
>Who gives a shit about evolution?

That was the topic under discussion. I realize that you have the
attention span of a mayfly, but do try to keep up, Jesper.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[raven1]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 06:08:20 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:14:21 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>The foundation of science is the idea that the natural world can be
>>explained without relying on supernatural beings. I wonder what Doctor of
>>Science Russell thinks the difference is between religion and science?
>>Perhaps he just wishes that religion had the respectability that science
>>has now.
>
>
>Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
>either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
>as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
>scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

Wells is a Moonie (oh, look, Jesper, a fellow cultist!) and ID
advocate who has been roundly criticized by his peers for his own lack
of scientific standards (and his frequent resort to outright
falsehoods like the above). His credibility is zero.

>"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
>connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
>--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

See Etheredge and Gould on the topic.

[raven1]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:24:37 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:32:00 -0400, raven1 squawked:
>
>>No: you keep running away because you're incapable of it.
>
>hahaha :) Listen to the Birdman. If it wasn't so funny to kick his
>pimply ass, he'd actually be a tragic figure...

Jesper, it's hard for you to kick anyone's ass when you've had your
arms and legs cut off. Monty Python's Black Knight never crowed
victory so loudly or inappropriately.

[fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk]

I missed a space out of my post, and totally changed the meaning. In
this sentence:

"Equally, atheist could believe that God created life, but that
evolution then resulted in diversification from whatever forms God had
created, possibly that God sill created new life forms while evolution
was taking place."

I did of course mean to type "a theist", not "atheist".

Atheism has even less to do with going to the moon, or not, abiogenese
(sic) or "a bunch of Arabs perpetrated 9/1" (sic), than it has to do
with evolution. Atheism is about not believing in a God, nothing more
and nothing less.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 27, 3:31 am, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:17:45 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >Are We Reaching a Consensus that Gravity Is Past Its Prime?
>
> >Idiot.
>
> Get an education, mindless dupe.
>

You first, Jesper.

[Jahnu]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:30:21 -0400, raven1 squawked:

>Wells is a Moonie (oh, look, Jesper, a fellow cultist!) and ID
>advocate who has been roundly criticized by his peers for his own lack
>of scientific standards (and his frequent resort to outright
>falsehoods like the above). His credibility is zero.

Hey Birdman, you are the last person to talk to anyone about
credibility. Next to a squawking crow like you, Wells is an
illuminatng sage.

Look, here is the proof you are a sub-humanic piece of garbage

Krishna says:

Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among
mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the
atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me. (Bg 7.15)

[Jahnu]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M." squawked:

>You first, Jesper.

"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely
superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our
weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality." -
Albert Einstein

[Jahnu]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:33:33 -0400, raven1 went:

<squawk squawk>

http://creationsafaris.com/crev201005.htm#20100521a

May 21, 2010 —

In many public school science classrooms today, Darwinism is taught
uncritically as a scientific fact. Eugenie Scott of the National
Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends that practice, and Casey
Luskin of the Discovery Institute (DI) contests it. This month the
two in their own venues argued their points of view, and another
educator weighed in on a larger issue about science education.

In Nature,1 Scott wrote a book review of How Science Works: Evolution.
A Student Primer by R. John Ellis (Springer, 2010). The phrase “How
science works” is often one of her own catch-phrases, so it would seem
she would warm up to this pro-Darwin book, but she had some
criticisms. “The public misunderstands and mistrusts the scientific
explanation of evolution morethan any other branch of research,
particularly in the United States,” she began. She thought Ellis did
a pretty good job explaining how science works: “Students learn about
testing multiple hypotheses, reliance on natural causes, the
open-endedness of science, its lack of dogmatism and the function of
peer review and replicating results.” But she got a little
nervous when he went overboard on his naturalism: “

He contrasts naturalism – the ideology that only the physical universe
exists, operating “according to inbuilt, unvarying regularities” –
with supernaturalism, the view that non-physical “active agents”
interact with the physical world. Religion, “the belief in some
superhuman controlling power or powers”, is a subset of the latter, he
writes. Ellis distinguishes between the methodological and
philosophical aspects of naturalism, but regularly conflates it with
science, which is not an ideology.

Scott also had problems with his “uneven” definitions of evolution.
She thinks he gave short shrift to common ancestry. He defined
evolution as “change in genetic composition of populations with time,”
hardly a phrase pregnant with images of bacteria to man. She thought
his definition of homology also left the reader with the “wrong
impression that homology is merely anatomical similarity.” This book
review, therefore, shows Scott’s views remain the same as when she
debated Phillip Johnson in the 1980s:

Science is not an ideology, the rules of science require
methodological naturalism, the only methodologically naturalistic view
of biology available is Darwinian evolution, because it does not
involve supernaturalism, therefore we must teach Darwin in the schools
and keep out creationism and intelligent design. Scott’s last
paragraph says all the reader needs to know about her views, by the
company she prefers. “It is welcome when scientists explain evolution
to the public. But for a better introduction
to the topic I would recommend Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True
(Viking, 2009), Richard Dawkins’s The Greatest Show on Earth (Free
Press, 2009), Donald Prothero’s Evolution (Columbia University Press,
2007) and Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish (Pantheon, 2008).”

Casey Luskin begs to differ. Students benefit from hearing Darwinism
taught scientifically, he said (i.e., with critical thinking), and he
wrote a new paper to support it. The paper, based on a presentation
he gave last fall at the University of St. Thomas, has been published
in the university’s Journal of Law & Public Policy,2 The paper made
three points summarized by Luskin on Evolution News & Views:


1. The inquiry method of teaching science stresses process over
content.
2. There are no legal obstacles to teaching scientific critiques of
prevailing theories.
3. There is ample evidence of controversy in evolutionary
literature.

The full paper can be downloaded as a PDF file from the Discovery
Institute website.

Luskin got support for his thesis from an unexpected source – Science
magazine, usually a staunchly pro-Darwin, pro-NCSE source. Last
month, Jonathan Osborne (School of Education, Stanford University)
wrote a review article entitled, “Arguing to Learn in Science: The
Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse,”3 in which he said
basically the same thing: students benefit by learning the process of
debate about controversial subjects – including evolution.

Argument and debate are common in science, yet they are virtually
absent from science education. Recent research shows, however, that
opportunities for students to engage in collaborative discourse and
argumentation offer a means of enhancing student conceptual
understanding and students’ skills and capabilities with scientific
reasoning. As one of the hallmarks of thescientist is critical,
rational skepticism, the lack of opportunities to develop the ability
to reason and argue scientifically would appear to be a significant
weakness in contemporary educational practice. In short, knowing what
is wrong matters as much as knowing what is right. This paper presents
a summary of the main features of this body of research and discusses
its implications for the teaching and learning of science.

Osborne goes on to say that argumentation is not peripheral to the
practice of science, but “core to its practice, and without argument
and evaluation, the construction of reliable knowledge would be
impossible.” In education, however, scientific explanations are given
with the presumption that they are true. Students are not being given
the opportunity to experience howclaims are supported by evidence,
warrants, and qualifiers, and subjected to counter-claims, rebuttals
and counter-arguments. “Consequently, science can appear to its
students as a monolith of facts, an authoritative discourse where the
discursive exploration of ideas, their implications, and their
importance is absent,” Osborne lamented. “Students then emerge with
naïve ideas or misconceptions about the nature of science itself,”
even though the AAAS and National Research Council endorse the value
of argumentation in learning science.

This is all fine and good, but surely Osborne is not referring to
evolution, is he? Aren’t all educators and scientists insistent that
evolution is a scientific fact, about which there is no reason to
argue?

The study of reasoning also offers an opportunity to explore the types
of arguments used in science, which may be abductive (inferences to
the best possible explanation), such as Darwin’s arguments for the
theory of evolution; hypothetico-deductive, such as Pasteur’s
predictions about the outcome of the first test of his anthrax
vaccine; or simply inductive generalizations archetypal represented by
“laws.”

Osborne pointed out that students find classroom teaching that
emphasizes argumentation skills much more engaging, too. He ended by
arguing that science education cannot be separated from matters of
epistemology:

“research has demonstrated that teaching students to reason, argue,
and think critically will enhance students’ conceptual learning. This
will only happen, however, if students are provided structured
opportunities to engage in deliberative exploration of ideas,
evidence, and argument—in short, how we know what we know, why it
matters, and how it came to be.”

1. Eugenie Scott, “Back to basics by way of evolution,” Nature
Volume: 465, 164, 13 May 2010, doi:10.1038/465164a.

2. Casey Luskin, “The Constitutional and Pedagogical Benefits of
Teaching Evolution Scientifically,” University of St. Thomas Journal
of Law & Public Policy, Vol. IV(1):204-277 (Fall, 2009). 3. Jonathan
Osborne, “Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative,
Critical Discourse,” Science23 April 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5977, pp. 463
- 466, DOI: 10.1126/science.1183944.

The problem with Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science
Education is that she never received a good science education. She
got a defective education from the triumphalist Julian Huxley era when
logical positivism was in swing and Darwinism was presented as a done
deal. That was before Quine and Kuhn and Feyerabend upset all the
applecarts; Lakatos, Laudan, van Fraasen and many others undermined
everything we thought we understood about “how science works.” Even
Osborne’s short list begs many questions about scientific reasoning –
i.e., what is meant by a law of nature? Scott is living in the 1940s
and needs a refresher course in how science works. She needs to learn
about abductive reasoning (used extensively by Stephen Meyer in
Signature in the Cell). She also needs a refresher course in logic so
that she does not make self-refuting statements, like stating the
ideology that methodological naturalism is not an ideology, or
claiming that science cannot refer to the supernatural, but then
employing reason to make that claim, when reason is not made of
particles or forces, and refers to logical truths that are universal,
timeless, necessary and certain.

Eugenie Scott needs to go take classes in Philosophy of Science and
Elementary Logic, particularly in how not to be inconsistent. Her
definition of science includes testing multiple hypotheses, as long as
the hypothesis selection process can exclude ones she doesn’t like.
Her science is fine with natural causes, as long as she can dip into
the supernatural causes she needs, like logic and reason. Her science
is open-ended, as long as she can close off the ends she doesn’t like.
Her science lacks dogmatism, as long as she can be dogmatic about the
parts she wants to be dogmatic about. Her science is fine with peer
review, as long as the pool of peers is protected against the peers
she doesn’t like. Her science is fine with replicating results, as
long as she doesn’t have to replicate the parts she can’t, like
universal common descent. Her science believes in following the rules
of “how science works,” as long as she and her totalitarian Darwin
Party hacks get to make the rules. Is this the kind of shallow,
uninformed, naïve, partisan, illogical thinking that should be
representing science education at

[Jahnu]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:16:55 -0700 (PDT), "fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk"
<fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk> wrote:

>Atheism has even less to do with going to the moon, or not, abiogenese
>(sic) or "a bunch of Arabs perpetrated 9/1" (sic), than it has to do
>with evolution. Atheism is about not believing in a God, nothing more
>and nothing less.

Atheism is about being extremely dense and moronic and denying
observable reality - nothing more and nothing less.

Krishna says:

My dear Arjuna, because you are never envious of Me, I shall impart to
you this most confidential knowledge and realization, knowing which
you shall be relieved of the miseries of material existence. (Bg. 9.1)

This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all
secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct
perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of
religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed. (Bg. 9.2)

O learned Uddhava, those who fix their consciousness on Me, giving up
all material desires, share with Me a happiness that cannot possibly
be experienced by those engaged in sense gratification.

--Srimad Bhagavatam 11.14.12

Have a look at my art -

[Syd M.]

On Oct 27, 8:15 pm, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M." squawked:
>
> >You first, Jesper.
>
> "My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely
> superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our
> weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality." -
> Albert Einstein
>
>

Bullshit.

[Jahnu]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:15:12 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M." whined:

>Bullshit.

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it
would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described
a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

-- Albert Einstein

[BroilJAB]

Will even one atheist escape judgment HELL

[raven1]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 05:49:35 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:33:33 -0400, raven1 went:
>
><squawk squawk>

Brave Sir Jesper ran away, bravely ran away away...

[Jahnu]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:46:05 -0400, raven1 went:

<squawk squawk>

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me
that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not
really bring us closer to the secret of the 'Old One.' I, at any rate,
am convinced that He is not playing at dice."

--Albert Einstein

[raven1]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:09:18 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:46:05 -0400, raven1 went:
>
><squawk squawk>

When danger reared its ugly head, Jesper turned his tail and fled...

[Jahnu]

[Jahnu]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:40:41 -0400, raven1 went:

<squawk squawk>

What's wrong with religion? It's lack of religion that breaks the
modern culture down, as we speak. Atheists are doing no good for
themselves or the world. They are an utterly useless presence on the
planet. In fact, the presence of the Coca-cola culture, they have
created, is a burden to nature and her inhabitants. It's like a cancer
on the planet, and nature is fully equipped to rid herself of it. She
just shakes her shoulders - it seems like a 100 years to us - and
everything comes tumbling down - earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and
so on...

Krishna says:

This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My
direction, O son of Kunti, producing all moving and nonmoving beings.
Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and
again. (Bg 9.10)

But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures
do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul
there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next. (Bg 4.40)

[raven1]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:10:24 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>What's wrong with religion? It's lack of religion that breaks the
>modern culture down, as we speak. Atheists are doing no good for
>themselves or the world.

Jesper, Bill and Melinda Gates do more good for the world before
breakfast than you've done in your life. Blow your smoke somewhere
else.

[Dakota]

And please explain why your religion has doomed the Dalits to a life
of servitude.

[raven1]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:52:17 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

He can also explain how his particular cult justifies him forsaking
his dharma by prematurely abandoning his duties as a householder.

[Jahnu]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:52:17 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>And please explain why your religion has doomed the Dalits to a life
>of servitude.

Everyone in the material world is doomed. Hare Krishna is the only
solution...

Krishna says:

From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all
are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But
one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again.
(Bg 8.16)

[raven1]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:07:25 +0530, Jahnu <Jahn...@gamail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:52:17 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And please explain why your religion has doomed the Dalits to a life
>>of servitude.
>
>Everyone in the material world is doomed.

But not everyone in the material world is treated as sub-human as a
matter of Hindu practice. How do you rationalize this, Jesper?

[WangoTango]

In article <58cm889l69ktqr9es...@4ax.com>,
Jahn...@gamail.com says...
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:25:27 -0400, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Naturally.
> >The ultimate case of confirmation bias.

>
> "New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
> connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

Which is a blatant lie.
Not only does the fossil record have MANY solid lineages, the TOE has
made predictions that have been confirmed. Which just PROVES that you
suffer from the ultimate case of confirmation bias. You ignore the VAST
amounts of evidence that has backed the TOE and cherry pick one, out of
context (no doubt) quote.

[Jahnu]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:03:50 -0400, raven1 whined:

>But not everyone in the material world is treated as sub-human as a
>matter of Hindu practice. How do you rationalize this, Jesper?

Krishna says:

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire
from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized
souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.
(Bg. 4.34)

Having obtained real knowledge from a self-realized soul, you will
never fall again into such illusion, for by this knowledge you will
see that all living beings are but part of the Supreme, or, in other
words, that they are Mine. (Bg. 4.35)

Even if you are considered to be the most sinful of all sinners, when
you are situated in the boat of transcendental knowledge you will be
able to cross over the ocean of miseries. (Bg. 4.36)

As a blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire
of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities. (Bg.
4.37)

In this world, there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental
knowledge. Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism. And
one who has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service
enjoys this knowledge within himself in due course of time. (Bg. 4.38)

A faithful man who is dedicated to transcendental knowledge and who
subdues his senses is eligible to achieve such knowledge, and having
achieved it he quickly attains the supreme spiritual peace. (Bg. 4.39)

But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures
do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul

there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next. (Bg. 4.40)

[Jahnu]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:21:37 -0400, Wanker Tango whined:

>Which is a blatant lie.

Nope. It's the truth. The truth hurts, eh? :)

---but, but, but that's not what they say on Animal Planet, wah wah...

>Not only does the fossil record have MANY solid lineages, the TOE has
>made predictions that have been confirmed. Which just PROVES that you
>suffer from the ultimate case of confirmation bias. You ignore the VAST
>amounts of evidence that has backed the TOE and cherry pick one, out of
>context (no doubt) quote.

"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil
record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace
the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through
a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria,
S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life)

"It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to
find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology
between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic
position." (Cracraft, J., "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the
Case Against Creationism," )

"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in
the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms
smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with
their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics:
Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company,
New York)

"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been
found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the
fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from
one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary
Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species)

"Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the
impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between
living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it
unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation
of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to
reconstruct phylogeny." (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus
Palaeontological Stores,")

"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do
not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of
most complex morphological adaptations." (Gould, Stephen J. and
Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," )

"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the
currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 million years ago.
Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in
Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."
("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil
Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173,
Article No. 0033)


"Many 'trends' singled out by evolutionary biologists are ex post
facto rendering of phylogenetic history: biologists may simply pick
out species at different points in geological time that seem to fit on
some line of directional modification through time. Many trends, in
other words, may exist more in the minds of the analysts than in
phylogenetic history. This is particularly so in situations,
especially common prior to about 1970, in which analysis of the
phylogenetic relationships among species was incompletely or poorly
done." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches,
and Adaptive Peaks)

[WangoTango]

In article <cccu889t55qsmj4j1...@4ax.com>,
Jahn...@gamail.com says...

>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:21:37 -0400, Wanker Tango whined:
>
> >Which is a blatant lie.
>
> Nope. It's the truth. The truth hurts, eh? :)
>
> ---but, but, but that's not what they say on Animal Planet, wah wah...
>
> >Not only does the fossil record have MANY solid lineages, the TOE has
> >made predictions that have been confirmed. Which just PROVES that you
> >suffer from the ultimate case of confirmation bias. You ignore the VAST
> >amounts of evidence that has backed the TOE and cherry pick one, out of
> >context (no doubt) quote.
>
> "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil
> record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace

Repeating lies do not make them true.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:29:34 -0400, WangoTango
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <cccu889t55qsmj4j1...@4ax.com>,
>Jahn...@gamail.com says...
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:21:37 -0400, Wanker Tango whined:
>>
>> >Which is a blatant lie.
>>
>> Nope. It's the truth. The truth hurts, eh? :)

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

>> ---but, but, but that's not what they say on Animal Planet, wah wah...
>>
>> >Not only does the fossil record have MANY solid lineages, the TOE has
>> >made predictions that have been confirmed. Which just PROVES that you
>> >suffer from the ultimate case of confirmation bias. You ignore the VAST
>> >amounts of evidence that has backed the TOE and cherry pick one, out of
>> >context (no doubt) quote.
>>
>> "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil
>> record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace

Does "little" mean "none at all" on this moron's planet?

>Repeating lies do not make them true.

Evolution happens faster in smaller populations because the gene pool
is smaller. Even Darwin understood this more than 150 years ago
because while he didn't know about genes and DNA, he realised the
hereditary changes would spread more slowly as the population
expanded.

And it is well understood why not every dead animal or plant
fossilises, and that even those that do can get lost through a wide
variety of natural means.

Creationism and fundamentalism are the descendents of the travelling
preacher and snake oil show in the wild West - with the rank and file
being the gullible audience who believe everything they say.

[Jahnu]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:29:34 -0400, WankerTango whined:

>Repeating lies do not make them true.

Who ever claimed that, moron?

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

[WangoTango]

In article <3g0098tid48pv1b2t...@4ax.com>, chrislee95050
@comcast.net says...

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:29:34 -0400, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <cccu889t55qsmj4j1...@4ax.com>,
> >Jahn...@gamail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:21:37 -0400, Wanker Tango whined:
> >>
> >> >Which is a blatant lie.
> >>
> >> Nope. It's the truth. The truth hurts, eh? :)
>
> What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
>
> >> ---but, but, but that's not what they say on Animal Planet, wah wah...
> >>
> >> >Not only does the fossil record have MANY solid lineages, the TOE has
> >> >made predictions that have been confirmed. Which just PROVES that you
> >> >suffer from the ultimate case of confirmation bias. You ignore the VAST
> >> >amounts of evidence that has backed the TOE and cherry pick one, out of
> >> >context (no doubt) quote.
> >>
> >> "The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil
> >> record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace
>
> Does "little" mean "none at all" on this moron's planet?
>
> >Repeating lies do not make them true.
>
> Evolution happens faster in smaller populations because the gene pool
> is smaller. Even Darwin understood this more than 150 years ago
> because while he didn't know about genes and DNA, he realised the
> hereditary changes would spread more slowly as the population
> expanded.

Most definitely.
It is fortunate that Darwin ended up in the Galapagos Islands.
Their isolated populations provided the optimal environment for
mutations to spread quickly, *AND*, most importantly, the related
species on the nearby islands allowed him to see that mutation from a
common ancestor is an obvious fact.
Funny how brilliant minds seem to create their own "luck".

>
> And it is well understood why not every dead animal or plant
> fossilises, and that even those that do can get lost through a wide
> variety of natural means.

Most *real* paleontologists will tell you that they are amazed at the
amount of data that the fossil record has provided, considering how rare
it is for something to fossilize. That, in itself, just shows how
prevalent life has been on this planet for a very, very long time.

>
> Creationism and fundamentalism are the descendents of the travelling
> preacher and snake oil show in the wild West - with the rank and file
> being the gullible audience who believe everything they say.

And yet, some people still buy into it. I think it allows ignorant
people to feel as if they have some special knowledge that they didn't
even have to work for.

[WangoTango]

In article <j4u098tjjtd4qne7d...@4ax.com>,
Jahn...@gamail.com says...

> n Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:29:34 -0400, WankerTango whined:
>
> >Repeating lies do not make them true.
>
> Who ever claimed that, moron?

You, you cherry pick a quote and yet ignore the tens of thousands of
paleontologists and biologists that would say otherwise, actually, I
should say the tens of thousands of experiments and evidence that are
verifiable and repeatable, that explain and show that evolution is
natural event.

[Jahnu]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:41:30 -0400, WankerTango wrote:

>You, you cherry pick a quote and yet ignore the tens of thousands of
>paleontologists and biologists that would say otherwise, actually, I
>should say the tens of thousands of experiments and evidence that are
>verifiable and repeatable, that explain and show that evolution is
>natural event.

hahaha :) Do you also believe in trolls and fairies? :)

---but, but, but I saw it on Animal Planet.

"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of
gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even
more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have
said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the
while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames:
The Rethinking of Darwinian
Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster:
New York NY)

"With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists
could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the
basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g.
Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands
close scrutiny." (Paul, C. R. C., 1989, "Patterns of Evolution and
Extinction in Invertebrates", Allen, K.C. and Briggs, D. E. G.
(editors), Evolution and the Fossil Record, Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D. C.)

"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants
within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin,
Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. &
Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His
Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London)

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed
must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and
every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does
not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps
is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against
the theory." (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition)

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin,
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin)

[Tim]

"Jahnu" wrote in message news:vu06985bvsmge4nh2...@4ax.com...

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:41:30 -0400, WankerTango wrote:

>You, you cherry pick a quote and yet ignore the tens of thousands of
>paleontologists and biologists that would say otherwise, actually, I
>should say the tens of thousands of experiments and evidence that are
>verifiable and repeatable, that explain and show that evolution is
>natural event.

hahaha :) Do you also believe in trolls and fairies? :)

-----------------

Ironic that, seeing you believe in some blue fairy. What happened, did it
fall in a port-o-potty? That'd explain why you are full of shit!

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Tuesday, 30 October 2012 01:51:37 UTC, Jahnu wrote:

>
> "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been
>
> found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the
>
> fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from
>
> one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary
>
> Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species)
>

Evolution doesn't involve "one species turning into another." It involves one species "giving birth" to another. It's perfectly consistent with the ToE if the original species coexists with the new until extinction claims one or the other.

>
>
> "Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the
>
> impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between
>
> living organisms is barely perceptible. ...In fact, I do not think it
>
> unfair to say that fossils, or at least the traditional interpretation
>
> of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to
>
> reconstruct phylogeny." (Fortey, P. L., "Neontological Analysis Versus
>
> Palaeontological Stores,")
>

It's easy to make mistakes in the fossil record as long as you are only dependent on estimating taxonomy from the mere shape of an, often partial, skeleton.

But genetic analysis has revolutionised the field.

>
>
> "Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do
>
> not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of
>
> most complex morphological adaptations." (Gould, Stephen J. and
>
> Eldredge, Niles, "Species Selection: Its Range and Power," )
>

Although the lack of intermediate forms is understandable in terms that intermediate forms are likely to have very low populations, and the odds of them making it into the fossil record is accordingly remote, there is also some support for "saltational" evolution, the idea that a new species can emerge quite suddenly.

[WangoTango]

In article <vu06985bvsmge4nh2...@4ax.com>,
Jahn...@gamail.com says...

> n Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:41:30 -0400, WankerTango wrote:
>
> >You, you cherry pick a quote and yet ignore the tens of thousands of
> >paleontologists and biologists that would say otherwise, actually, I
> >should say the tens of thousands of experiments and evidence that are
> >verifiable and repeatable, that explain and show that evolution is
> >natural event.
>
> hahaha :) Do you also believe in trolls and fairies? :)

No, but you do. You have said so.

[Jahnu]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:58:39 -0400, WangoTango
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:


>Jahn...@gamail.com says...

>> hahaha :) Do you also believe in trolls and fairies? :)
>
>No, but you do. You have said so.

Nope. Never said.

Krishna says:

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very
hard with the six senses, which include the mind. (Bg. 15.7)

The living entity in the material world carries his different
conceptions of life from one body to another as the air carries
aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take
another. (Bg. 15.8)

The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain
type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped
about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects. (Bg.
15.9)

The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body,
nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of
the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can
see all this. (Bg. 15.10)

The endeavoring transcendentalists who are situated in
self-realization can see all this clearly. But those whose minds are
not developed and who are not situated in self-realization cannot see
what is taking place, though they may try to. (Bg. 15.11)

[WangoTango]

In article <ger798p2i3qgt9769...@4ax.com>,
Jahn...@gamail.com says...

>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:58:39 -0400, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Jahn...@gamail.com says...
>
> >> hahaha :) Do you also believe in trolls and fairies? :)
> >
> >No, but you do. You have said so.
>
> Nope. Never said.

Yes, you have. You post your fairy quotes in every reply.
BTW, I thought you didn't read my posts. You said that too.
Your lies know no boundary.