Famous Evolutionists, their beliefs, and their mistakes
Mike Rogers
need evolution to be true. William provine, an evolutionary biologist
at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard
Dawkins, famously said," Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic on
the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence
against evolution.
• And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his
followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the
alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne,
Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority –
because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years
after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who
asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race
and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler,
Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have
resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all,
evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the
animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible
teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?
• Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by
evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel's recapitulation theory
that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ
error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist
uses to prove his position), etc.Let me dwell on the fossil record
since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
• Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma
said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted
there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like
creature to man!
• Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its
abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume
that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact.
(I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist
but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of
an apostate preacher!)
• Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have
found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and
no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further
said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional
creatures."
• Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of
Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a
great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a
false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long
time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar
'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the
explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one
day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the
history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And
so it is.
• This isn't science , its treating doubts about evolution as
religious heresy. Darwinism, as philosopher and mathematician David
Berlinski says, is "the last of the great 19th century mystery
religions." The only reason a lot of Christians reject evolution is
that we are taught to abjure big fat lies. You can look it up-we have
an entire commandment about the importance of not lying.
• World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently
died), with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an
expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized
dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen
Rose, Texas, "...all this makes evolution impossible." And so it does.
• have assumed that the readers here are familiar with all the world
famous scientists I have quoted above. All of them! If not, they are
really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation
discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.
• I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that
evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of
Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-
living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
• Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma
said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
paleontology does not provide them...."
• Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of
transformation from an ape-like creature to man!"Paleontologists have
paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as
the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad
that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The
history of most fossil species includes two features particularly
inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no
directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the
fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;
morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and
'fully formed.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
• "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, 1981, p. 95)
• "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 Paleontological
Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
• "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by
themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has
occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have
been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology
and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J.
Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution,
like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex
of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the
hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't
even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is
compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary
theories and special creationist theories and even historical
theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P.Grassé,
Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
• "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life
are great con men and the story they are telling may be the greatest
hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact. -
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian
• "...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is
not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori' adherence to material
causes to create a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot
allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and
Billions of Demons, The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p.
31
• "Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent designer, such
an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not
naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd
• The greatest scientific philosopher of all time, Dr. Karl Popper,
said that evolution is not a law, nor a theory and that it doesn't
even rise to the level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
than a metaphysical research program and he was right. And it was he
who stressed that falsifiability is necessary for genuine science.
• "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of
phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition..." -
Steven M. Stanley 1979a
• "As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in
the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually
unchanged, only to disappear abruptly..." - Tom Kemp 1985a
• "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by
themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has
occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have
been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology
and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J.
Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution,
like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex
of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the
hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't
even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is
compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary
theories and special creationist theories and even historical
theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé,
Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
• "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument.
We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to
preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view
our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we
profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two
features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most
species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.
They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they
disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise
gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears
all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb,
1980, p. 181-182)
• "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for
reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they
cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation
myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when
• multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology
and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still
dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with
the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic
cell." (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature,
vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), pp. 765-766)
• If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little
by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils
of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them
and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence
of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to
gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock
strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however,
geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500
million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The
Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
• It's interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund
the Scopes Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can
legally be taught in Tennessee and that's unfair. Well, now they are
on the inside, and demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued
against. When a famous politician asked the ACLU to support his bill
in the Indiana House of Representatives that required Indiana schools
to teach scientific creation and evolution equally, they refused to
support that bill! Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought various
ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their own
minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith
as they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark
basement looking for a black cat – that isn't there.
• Just to clean the palate of a century of evolutionists' browbeating
everyone into saying evolution is a FACT and we'll see you in court if
you criticize the official state religion, we begin with a story from
the late Colin Patterson, respected paleontologist at the Natural
History Museum in London. Like Diogenes searching for one honest man,
Patterson was on a quest to find someone who could tell him-as he put
it-"anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing
that you think is true". Patterson said," I tried that question on the
geology staff at the field museum of natural history, and the only
answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the
Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very
prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for
a long time".
• Liberals' Creation Myth is Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution,
Which is about one notch above Scientology in Scientific rigor. It's a
make believe story based on a theory that is tautology, with no proof
in the Scientists laboratory or in the fossil record-and that's after
150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking
about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.
Eric Root
Why all the babbling about the left? What does politics have to do
with any of this?
Eric Root
richardal...@googlemail.com
> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> need evolution to be true.
Atheists don't believe in God.
> William provine, an evolutionary biologist
> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
> devised by man.
Well bully for Provine. Many evolutionary biologists disagree with him
and see no conflict between their faith and the findings of science.
> His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard
> Dawkins, famously said," Darwin made it possible to be an
> intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic on
> the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence
> against evolution.
FALSEHOOD #2
There is no "vast and accumulating evidence against evolution"
> • And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his
> followers were racists
FALSEHOOD #3
By the standards of his time, Darwin was far less racist than many of
his Christian contemporaries. Unlike many of them, he opposed slavery.
> who believed that blacks were closer to the
> alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne,
> Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority –
> because of their evolutionary bias.
...and many Christian slaveowners claimed Biblical support for their
actions.
> The haters for a hundred years
> after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who
> asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race
> and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler,
FALSEHOOD #3
Hitler proscribed Darwin's works.
> Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc.
FALSEHOOD #4
Under Stalin, Darwin's theory was supressed.
> Evolutionary teachings have
> resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood.
FALSEHOOD #5
"Evolutionary teachings" had nothing whatsoever to do with the wars in
Europe.
> After all,
> evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the
> animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible
> teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?
FALSEHOOD #6
History shows us that "evolutionists" have far more care for other
people's lives than the "Christians" who burned people at the stake
for being the wrong sort of Christian.
> • Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by
> evolutionists because of their faith:
FALSEHOOD #7
Evolutionary theory is not "faith". It's a scientific theory which
explains how evolution happens.
> Haeckel's recapitulation theory
> that only third-rate scientists believe;
FALSEHOOD #8
No scientist, third-rate or otherwise, accepts a theory which was
falsifed over a century ago.
> also the vestigial organ
> error;
FALSEHOOD #9
Vestigial organs are explained by evolutionary theory.
> the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist
> uses to prove his position),
FALSEHOOD #10
The fossil record is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.
> etc.Let me dwell on the fossil record
> since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
FALSEHOOD #11
Any honest biologist or palaeontologist will tell you that it is.
> • Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma
> said (in 1979)
>, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
> paleontology does not provide them...."
MISREPRESENTATION #1
And an example of creationists dishonestly taking a quote out of
context to imply a meaning different from that of the original author.
> And Lord Zuckerman admitted
(in 1954)
> there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like
> creature to man!
MISREPRESENTATION #2
Many fossil hominids have been discovered in the half century since he
wrote that, and many scientists of the time disagreed with him most
strongly.
> • Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its
> abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."
MISREPRESENTATION #3
Gould also wrote: "Transitions are often found in the fossil record.
Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according
to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not
entirely wanting, as creationists often claim."
> I assume
> that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact.
FALSEHOOD #12
Darwin "admitted" nothing of the sort. Archaepteryx , discovered a few
years after he published "Origin of Species" was exactly the sort of
transitional form his theory predicted.
> (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist
FALSEHOOD #13
Darwin was a trained scientist who made substantial contributions to
geology and biology.
> but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of
> an apostate preacher!)
FALSEHOOD #14
"Evolutionists" don't "worship" Darwin.
> • Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have
> found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and
> no transitional forms were contained in them."
MISREPRESENTATION #4
This was in the context of a discussion of PE.
> Dr. Eldredge further
> said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional
> creatures."
>
MISREPRESENATION #5
He went on to write "What is extraordinary is that in the 120 years
since Darwin appeared to have cracked the problem with elegant
neatness in "The Origin of Species," the principle has withstood all
attacks on it - and yet still evolves loose ends."
> • Dr. Soren Lovtrup,
MISREPRESENATION #6
A creationist.
> Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of
> Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a
> great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a
> false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long
> time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar
> 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the
> explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one
> day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the
> history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And
> so it is.
And he is considered (rightly) to have been a nutcase.
>
> • This isn't science ,
FALSEHOOD #15
It is according to every scientist who isn't blinded by religious
dogma.
> its treating doubts about evolution as
> religious heresy.
FALSEHOOD #16
Evolutionary theory addresses evidence just as much as any other
scientific theory.
> Darwinism, as philosopher and mathematician David
> Berlinski
A creationist.
> says, is "the last of the great 19th century mystery
> religions." The only reason a lot of Christians reject evolution is
> that we are taught to abjure big fat lies. You can look it up-we have
> an entire commandment about the importance of not lying.
Which doesn't seem to stop creationists lying through their teeth.
>
> • World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith
Another creationist.
> (who recently
> died), with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an
> expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized
> dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen
> Rose, Texas, "...all this makes evolution impossible."
> And so it does.
FALSEHOOD #17
Forgeries so blatant that even other creationists are embarrassed by
them prove only the dishonesty of creationists.
> • have assumed that the readers here are familiar with all the world
> famous scientists I have quoted above. All of them! If not, they are
> really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation
> discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.
FALSEHOOD #18
They will be informed on the "debate" if they educate themselves from
honest sources.
> • I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that
> evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of
> Thermodynamics,
FALSEHOOD #19
...and such a blatant one that even other creationists are embarassed
by it.
> origin of the universe,
FALSEHOOD #20
This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
>beginning of life from non-
> living matter,
FALSEHOOD #21
This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
>the Cambrian explosion,
FALSEHOOD #22
..poses no problem for evolutionary theory..
>etc.
> • Dr. David Kitts,
A creationist
> professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma
> said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
> paleontology does not provide them...."
FALSEHOOD #23
There are numerous such forms in the fossil record.
..and we go on to another round of misrepresentation, distortion and
outright falsehoods.
Note that the author offers no evidence against evolutionary theory,
no alternative, testable explanation for the evidence, and no evidence
in support of creationism.
RF
Burkhard
> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> need evolution to be true.
They did OK all the centuries before Darwin
William provine, an evolutionary biologist
> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
> devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard
> Dawkins, famously said," Darwin made it possible to be an
> intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic on
> the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence
> against evolution.
ho says atheists are predominantly on the left?
> • And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his
> followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the
> alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne,
> Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority –
> because of their evolutionary bias.
The creationist Aggasiz supported slavery, based on his biological
theory. Where Darwin emphasized that we are all related, various
flavours of creationism through the centuries argued that either black
and white were created separately to start with and hence "blacks not
really human" or that the "curse of Ham" singles out black's as
inferior by Gods own decree. Unsurprisibgly, Darwin and his folks were
anti-slavery campaigners (see Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of
Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution by Adrian Desmond,
James Moore, BN 2009)
see by contrast e.g. the christian mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich, "I
saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter
like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he
grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who
would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt
race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see
that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham.
Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source
whence those degraded races sprang"
The haters for a hundred years
> after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who
> asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race
Which Nietzsche never did, btw, his superhuman is not based on
biology, but a decisions of the human will.
> and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler,
Who did not cite Darwin even once, but makes copious references to
his Christian mission, like this one'
"Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against
Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped
into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this
people in utter honesty and sincerity."
-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922
and ;
The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred
years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for
what they were".... I recognize the representatives of this race as
pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby
doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and
public functions.
-Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933
and finally;
A few days ago I was in Eisenach and stood on top of the Wartburg,
where a great German once translated the Bible.
-Adolf Hitler, in Schleiz, Thuringia, 18 Jan. 1927
That "great German" was of course also the author of "Of the lies of
the Jews" where he said of Jews they were a "base, whoring people,
that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision,
and law must be accounted as filth." and that they'd be " full of the
"devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." Making sure that
Protestantism was from the word go marred in a particularly
discgusting form of anti-semitism on which Hitler could build.
> Mussolini,
Who also never once cited Darwin, but put crosses ack in schools and
government buildings, made teh catechism compulsory primary school
teaching, and signed a treaty with the Vatican taht established the
latter as state and gave it huge amounts of money.
Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc.
any evidence for this?
Evolutionary teachings have
> resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood.
The highest percentage of population lost in war in Europe happened in
two religious wars, During the 30 years war on the continent, between
15-30 of the population perished, in some regions like Wuertemberg as
much as 70%, Overall, the male population n Germany declined by 50%.
(Kamen, Henry (1968). "The Economic and Social Consequences of the
Thirty Years' War". Past and Present 39: 44–61.)
Cromwell's attempt at a genocide of the Catholics in Ireland killed
almsot half of the population, and his wars in England cost 10% of
the population - 3 times more than WW1 and 5 times more than WW2
After all,
> evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the
> animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible
> teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?
animals other than humans don;t do this sort of wholesale slaughter of
their own kind, so you might be right, we are so much worse in that
respect that one might on occasion doubt common descent.
Ron O
> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> need evolution to be true. William provine, an evolutionary biologist
> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
> devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard
> Dawkins, famously said," Darwin made it possible to be an
> intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic on
> the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence
> against evolution.
> • And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his
> followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the
> alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne,
> Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority –
> because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years
> after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who
> asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race
> and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler,
> Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have
> resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all,
> evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the
> animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible
> teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?
Is this all on the web somewhere or did this boob actually put it all
together himself. He has bogus junk that was known to be bogus for
over 20 years. Where can you still find this junk? Gould?
Eldredge? Zuckerman? Gish used to use that junk.
Ron Okimoto
Will in New Haven
> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> need evolution to be true.
Utter bullshit, Mr. Rogers. It is good that you began that huge flood
of falsehoods with this nonsense because no one need bother with the
rest. There were _many_ atheists before Darwin. There are many
atheists today who never even think about evolution or the science of
biology. So your first statement is nonsense.
Many individual atheists can do fine without Darwin. Marxist atheists
were ambivalent about Darwin. If there is any kind of atheistic
movement today, it can find some other naturalistic mechanism if
evolution proves untenable, which isn't going to happen in any case.
Thank you for dropping by the newsgroup with your pile of shit. Take
it with you when you go.
--
Will in New Haven
Uncle Arnold
> Nietzsche (who
> [...] called for the breeding of a master race
> and for the annihilation of millions of misfits),
Nietsche didn't call for 'the breeding of a master race' or 'the
annihilation of misfits'.
Just goes to show that you filth can't tell the truth about *anything*...
A.
Will in New Haven
Why quote the whole damn pile of gibberish when you are going to do a
one-line reply? I mean I agree with your reply but even the Bronze-Age
Hebrews learned to snip. :-,)
John McKendry
It appears to be a pastiche. A large part of it comes from
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html , copyright 1997
by Don Boys, Ph.D. cstnews is "Common Sense for Today", who
explain that " Our primary goal is to be an effective witness
of the saving power of Jesus Christ in a person's life."
Other parts seem to be from Ann Coulter, although the attribution is
fuzzy:
(make the URL one line)
http://atheiststooges.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/
a-collection-of-great-quotes-by-the-brainy-blonde-bombshell/
This site bills itself as "Atheist-Fools.com, Celebrating the
stupidity of Atheism around the world".
Those two sources account for most of it. I don't think Mike has
put a lot of original thought into his contribution here.
John
Will in New Haven
> by Don Boys, Ph.D. cstnews is "Common Sense for Today", who
> explain that " Our primary goal is to be an effective witness
> of the saving power of Jesus Christ in a person's life."
>
> Other parts seem to be from Ann Coulter, although the attribution is
> fuzzy:
> a-collection-of-great-quotes-by-the-brainy-blonde-bombshell/
>
> This site bills itself as "Atheist-Fools.com, Celebrating the
> stupidity of Atheism around the world".
>
> Those two sources account for most of it. I don't think Mike has
> put a lot of original thought into his contribution here.
Well, I'd hate to think he used up much of something he so sorely
lacks. Thanks for doing the research.
All-Seeing-I
>
> read more »
Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
and put together.
I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
Great Post!
--
Wittness Evolution Being Thrown on the Burn Pile of History with...
The All Seeing I
Will in New Haven
You mean that he didn't write it but got it from various sources? You
mean that most of it was nonsense? It was predictable that you would
like it because you're an asshole.
--
Will in New Haven
>
Tim DeLaney
<snip>
>
> Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
> and put together.
>
> I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
> people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
> neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
>
> Great Post!
>
> --
> Wittness Evolution Being Thrown on the Burn Pile of History with...
>
> The All Seeing I- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wishful thinking on your part.
Tim
Mark Evans
SNIP
> Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
> and put together.
>
You know, I thought that you could not post anything any dumber than
what you have. I was wrong.
Add journalism and research to the looong list of stuff you know
nothing about.
Mark Evans
Tim DeLaney
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 6:32 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
<snip>
Just a quote from upthread:
"Why quote the whole damn pile of gibberish
when you are going to do a one-line reply?
I mean I agree with your reply but even the
Bronze-Age Hebrews learned to snip. :-,)
Tim
Ron O
> by Don Boys, Ph.D. cstnews is "Common Sense for Today", who
> explain that " Our primary goal is to be an effective witness
> of the saving power of Jesus Christ in a person's life."
>
> Other parts seem to be from Ann Coulter, although the attribution is
> fuzzy:
> a-collection-of-great-quotes-by-the-brainy-blonde-bombshell/
>
> This site bills itself as "Atheist-Fools.com, Celebrating the
> stupidity of Atheism around the world".
>
> Those two sources account for most of it. I don't think Mike has
> put a lot of original thought into his contribution here.
>
Just tells you how brain dead Ann Coulter is.
Thanks.
Ron Okimoto
Will in New Haven
That's giving her credit for being sincere. I don't think that's fair
to her intellect and it is too generous to her morals. She's a
shearer, not a sheep.
AusShane
> Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
> and put together.
>
> I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
> people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
> neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
>
> Great Post!
>
> --
> Wittness Evolution Being Thrown on the Burn Pile of History with...
>
> The All Seeing I
I guess you missed the bit about it all being a demonstrated
falsehood. Its about as well researched and true as most of the skewed
bizarre posts you put here. Please don't comment on things you do not
understand. Amazon.com and the history channel are not centres of
academic excellence........
georgecleveland
Boikat
> On Nov 14, 2:34 pm, Mike Rogers <tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
> and put together.
That just goes to show that you'll accept anything that appears anti-
evolution. The post was nothing more that the usual PRATTs, and you
gobbled them up like a third year 'tard at a snot eating contest.
>
> I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
> people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
> neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
No, it's synonymous with "Same old lies and bullcrap from a creatoard
who probably cut-n-pasted it from some cretinist web site.
".
>
> Great Post!
If you're into self deception.
>
> --
> Wittness great steaming heaps of bullshit, gobbled up by...
>
> The All Seeing I
Boikat
All-seeing-I
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 6:32 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
> > and put together.
>
> > I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
> > people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
> > neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
>
> You mean that he didn't write it but got it from various sources? You
> mean that most of it was nonsense? It was predictable that you would
> like it because you're an asshole.
An "asshole"?
hahaha!
Free Clue: I would rather be an asshole then a whole ass like you
--
Wittness Evolution and Whole Asses Being Thrown on the Burn Pile of
Boikat
> On Nov 14, 5:35 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 6:32 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> [cut to point]
> > > Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
> > > and put together.
>
> > > I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
> > > people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
> > > neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
>
> > You mean that he didn't write it but got it from various sources? You
> > mean that most of it was nonsense? It was predictable that you would
> > like it because you're an asshole.
>
> An "asshole"?
Yes, you are.
>
> hahaha!
>
> Free Clue: I would rather be an asshole then a whole ass like you
Granted. You are an asshole.
>
> --
> Wittness the self delusion of...
>
> The All Seeing I
bpuharic
<tocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>• Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
>need evolution to be true.
why? atheism predates darwin.
William provine, an evolutionary biologist
>at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
>devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard
>Dawkins, famously said," Darwin made it possible to be an
>intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic on
>the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence
>against evolution.
of course, i guess you've forgotten about folks like john derbyshire,
an ultrarightist atheist who writes for 'national review'...and who
accepts evolution.
>• And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his
>followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the
>alleged ape men than whites?
guess it's escaped your atttention that, according to gourevitch's
book, creationism was partially responsbile for the 1994 rwanda
genocide...AND
every single american slave owner was a creationist.
Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne,
>Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority –
>because of their evolutionary bias
then how does one account for jefferson davis's creationist defense of
slavery? how does one account for the fact ALL american slave owners
were creationists?
The haters for a hundred years
>after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who
>asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race
>and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler,
>Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc
hitler? interesting....because it seems darwin must have had a time
machine
in 1492, spanish chrisitans expelled the remaining jews from spain
however, before this, they murdered 1/3 of all jews in spain. that's
about the same percentage of worldwide jewry that hitler murdered...
and that was 400 years before darwin.
>• Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma
>said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
>paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted
>there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like
>creature to man!
except of course, transitionals for the horse, the whale, and the
evolution of the inner ear from the jaws of reptiles
these tiresome cliches are obviosly not only wrong, but lead to
anti-semitism
start with the document 'dabru emet'...written by 200 rabbis and
jewish scholars in 2001
there, they say, that, without CHRISTIAN antisemitism, the shoah could
never have happened.
you creationists need a new set of lies.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
>and put together.
>
>I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
>people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
>neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
>
>Great Post!
one need only realize that all american slave owners were creationists
to understand that this hackneyed article is a pack of lies
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Like yourself and all other Atheists, she accepts evolution.
Ray
Boikat
You haven't read "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", have you? The
boney assed bitch didn't even know enough about evolution to do her
own writing on the subject in her book, so she went to the DI and got
one of the shills there to basically write the chapters dealing with
evolution for her. Sorry, Ray-tard, Coulter does not accept the ToE.
She doesn't even understand *what* it is, except that the religious
reich don't like it very much, and since she's their whore, she don't
like it either, whatever it is.
But, by all means, feel free to show me where Coulter states that she
accepts the ToE.
Boikat
Free Lunch
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Ray, why do you keep ignoring that the vast majority of Christians
belong to church bodies that also accept evolution?
Steven L.
> On Nov 14, 3:34 pm, Mike Rogers <tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
>> need evolution to be true. William provine, an evolutionary biologist
>> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
>> devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard
>> Dawkins, famously said," Darwin made it possible to be an
>> intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic on
>> the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence
>> against evolution.
>> • And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his
>> followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the
>> alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne,
>> Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority –
>> because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years
>> after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who
>> asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race
>> and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler,
>> Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have
>> resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all,
>> evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the
>> animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible
>> teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?
>> evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel's recapitulation theory
>> that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ
>> error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist
>> uses to prove his position), etc.Let me dwell on the fossil record
>> since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
>> said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
>> paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted
>> there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like
>> creature to man!
>> said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
>> paleontology does not provide them...."
>> We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to
>> preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view
>> our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we
>> profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two
>> features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most
>> species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.
>> They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they
>> disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
>> 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise
>> gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears
>> all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb,
>> 1980, p. 181-182)
>> reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they
>> cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation
>> myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when
>> • multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology
>> and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still
>> dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with
>> the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic
>> cell." (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature,
>> vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), pp. 765-766)
>> • If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little
>> by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils
>> of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them
>> and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence
>> of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to
>> gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock
>> strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however,
>> geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500
>> Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
>>
>> • It's interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund
>> the Scopes Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can
>> legally be taught in Tennessee and that's unfair. Well, now they are
>> on the inside, and demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued
>> against. When a famous politician asked the ACLU to support his bill
>> in the Indiana House of Representatives that required Indiana schools
>> to teach scientific creation and evolution equally, they refused to
>> support that bill! Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought various
>> ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their own
>> minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith
>> as they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark
>> basement looking for a black cat – that isn't there.
>> • Just to clean the palate of a century of evolutionists' browbeating
>> everyone into saying evolution is a FACT and we'll see you in court if
>> you criticize the official state religion, we begin with a story from
>> the late Colin Patterson, respected paleontologist at the Natural
>> History Museum in London. Like Diogenes searching for one honest man,
>> Patterson was on a quest to find someone who could tell him-as he put
>> it-"anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing
>> that you think is true". Patterson said," I tried that question on the
>> geology staff at the field museum of natural history, and the only
>> answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the
>> Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very
>> prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for
>> a long time".
>> • Liberals' Creation Myth is Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution,
>> Which is about one notch above Scientology in Scientific rigor. It's a
>> make believe story based on a theory that is tautology, with no proof
>> in the Scientists laboratory or in the fossil record-and that's after
>> 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking
>> about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.
>
> Why all the babbling about the left? What does politics have to do
> with any of this?
Empirically, it seems to have something to do with it.
Have you forgotten all the gratuitous attacks by evolutionists on this
NG--not against creationists, but against Republicans and conservatives,
including Rush Limbaugh? Go search the Google archive of this NG,
you'll find plenty.
And look at the most illustrious, most well-known public advocates for
evolution:
Gould was a Marxist
Hitchens is a socialist
Carl Sagan was left of center politically
So is P.Z. Myers
There does seem to be a positive correlation between advocacy of the ToE
and left-wing political views. Not all those who accept the ToE are
left-wingers (I'm not, and neither are John Derbyshire or Charles
Krauthammer); but it would appear that most are.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Nov 14, 8:34 pm, Mike Rogers <tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
>> need evolution to be true.
> Atheists don't believe in God.
>> William provine, an evolutionary biologist
>> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
>> devised by man.
>
> and see no conflict between their faith and the findings of science.
How many???
As I understand it, most evolutionary biologists who are members of the
AAAS are atheists. Not all, but most. Certainly most scientists (or
those with scientific training) on this NG are atheists, yes?
The OP is wrong in just about everything else he wrote. But his
empirical observation is correct. There really is a positive correlation
in the American population between public advocacy of the ToE and
rejection of religion (which becomes an even far stronger correlation in
the American community of biologists); and there is even a significant
correlation between acceptance of the ToE and support for left-wing
political views.
It's not a perfect correlation; there are a few exceptions like Ken
Miller. But even he will admit that his views are not widely shared
among his peers.
heekster
Ouch.
Mark Isaak
> On Nov 14, 2:34 pm, Mike Rogers <tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>
> Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
> and put together.
Note, however, that the post is only some 200 lines long. "Famous
Evolutionists, their beliefs, and their successes" fills entire
libraries.
Now see if you can put together a post on the subject of "Famous
Creationists and their successes". See if you can fill more than 20
lines before you wander away from reality.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
VoiceOfReason
Mike Rogers wrote:
> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> need evolution to be true. William provine, an evolutionary biologist
> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
> devised by man.
Horseshit. The greatest engine of atheism today is Christian
fundamentalism. That's why young people are leaving evangelical
churches in droves.
> • And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his
> followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the
> alleged ape men than whites?
Sure, it possible, but it's another common creationist lie.
> • Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by
> evolutionists because of their faith:
First, evolutionary biology is science, not a religious belief.
Second, the mistakes were caught by science, not investigative
reporters, and certainly not ignorant creationists.
<snip remaining lies>
VoiceOfReason
> by Don Boys, Ph.D. cstnews is "Common Sense for Today", who
> explain that " Our primary goal is to be an effective witness
> of the saving power of Jesus Christ in a person's life."
>
> Other parts seem to be from Ann Coulter, although the attribution is
> fuzzy:
> a-collection-of-great-quotes-by-the-brainy-blonde-bombshell/
>
> This site bills itself as "Atheist-Fools.com, Celebrating the
> stupidity of Atheism around the world".
>
> Those two sources account for most of it. I don't think Mike has
> put a lot of original thought into his contribution here.
>
It's a first post, so I'll wager it's somebody else's sockpuppet.
VoiceOfReason
Coulter... *cringe* ... What an utterly odious skank.
Boikat
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:32:05 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 2:34 pm, Mike Rogers <tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [snip]
>
> > Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
> > and put together.
>
> Note, however, that the post is only some 200 lines long. "Famous
> Evolutionists, their beliefs, and their successes" fills entire
> libraries.
>
> Now see if you can put together a post on the subject of "Famous
> Creationists and their successes". See if you can fill more than 20
> lines before you wander away from reality.
>
He could start with the famous scientific discoveries made by the
"great scientist", Kent Hovind.....
Well, he'd wander away from reality in the first line on that one.
Boikat
heekster
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:32:05 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
>>and put together.
>>
>>I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
>>people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
>>neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
>>
>>Great Post!
>
>one need only realize that all american slave owners were creationists
You need to remember that there hasn't been a slave owner in the US
for around 134 years, and when there were slave owners, the slaves
themselves were also creationists. In fact, virtually all American
Jews and Christians at that time were creationists. The only ones who
weren't, were the few atheists, and the Indians who had not converted.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Mike Rogers" <tocr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:893e947f-7603-4c79...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
� Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
need evolution to be true.
Although those who ACCEPT evolution do not really need ANY fantasy spirits
to show them reality -
those who believe in fables, fairy tales and magial dwarfs need every ounce
of warped imagination they can handle.
Such blanket comments about evolutionists and atheists only serve to show
the ignorance of the poster.
John Harshman
> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> need evolution to be true. William provine, an evolutionary biologist
> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
> devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard
> Dawkins, famously said," Darwin made it possible to be an
> intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic on
> the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence
> against evolution.
I'm guessing your a post'n'run sort, but I'll reply anyway. What vast
and accumulating evidence? Wouldn't it be more effective use of your
time to post the actual evidence rather than all this nonsense?
> • And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his
> followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the
> alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne,
> Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority –
> because of their evolutionary bias.
Speaking of evidence, do you have any evidence for that? The most
virulent racist scientist of the 19th Century was Louis Agassiz, also
known as the last creationist scientist. Was that his evolutionary bias
working?
> The haters for a hundred years
> after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who
> asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race
> and for the annihilation of millions of misfits),
I'm suspecting you have never read any Nietsche.
> followed by Hitler,
> Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have
> resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all,
> evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the
> animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible
> teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?
The bible teaches that man is a little lower than the animals? I missed
that verse.
> • Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by
> evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel's recapitulation theory
> that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ
> error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist
> uses to prove his position), etc.Let me dwell on the fossil record
> since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
Really? Could you get any actual scientists to agree to this novel
claim? Or will you resort to quote-mining? Ah, the latter, I see.
> • Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma
> said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
> paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted
> there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like
> creature to man!
Those aren't even proper quotes. A two-word quote? When you're
quote-mining, at least cite the source so we can find out what they
really said.
> • Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its
> abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume
> that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact.
> (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist
> but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of
> an apostate preacher!)
You know nothing. Let me know when you want to talk science instead of
pointless innuendo.
> • Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have
> found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and
> no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further
> said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional
> creatures."
> • Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of
> Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a
> great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a
> false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long
> time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar
> 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the
> explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one
> day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the
> history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And
> so it is.
You understand that Lovtrup (a nut, in my opinion, but an interesting
one) wasn't complaining about evolution, but about natural selection. Right?
> • This isn't science , its treating doubts about evolution as
> religious heresy. Darwinism, as philosopher and mathematician David
> Berlinski says, is "the last of the great 19th century mystery
> religions." The only reason a lot of Christians reject evolution is
> that we are taught to abjure big fat lies. You can look it up-we have
> an entire commandment about the importance of not lying.
Are you actually claiming that all evolutionary biologists are lying?
Are you in fact accusing me of lying in all my work?
> • World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently
> died), with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an
> expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized
> dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen
> Rose, Texas, "...all this makes evolution impossible." And so it does.
Ooh: considered an expert by the UN. Must be right, since I'm sure you
revere the UN and all its works. There are no Paluxy man prints, by the way.
> • have assumed that the readers here are familiar with all the world
> famous scientists I have quoted above. All of them! If not, they are
> really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation
> discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.
I'm familiar with them. Some are scientists, but you have seriously
misinterpreted their views, except for Wilder-Smith. I bet you have
never actually read anything by any of them. And Berlinski is no scientist.
> • I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that
> evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of
> Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-
> living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
I notice you don't have space to deal with any actual scientific matters.
> • Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma
> said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
> paleontology does not provide them...."
Now what? Reruns? OK, I'm bored. Let's see if there's anything of
interest below.
Nope.
John Harshman
Mostly for being creationists. I'm afraid the Republican Party has been
taken over by the religious right, and creationism is one of those
things you at least have to pay lip service to. Remember the primary
debate in which only two of the many candidates were willing to go on
record as believing in evolution?
> And look at the most illustrious, most well-known public advocates for
> evolution:
>
> Gould was a Marxist
> Hitchens is a socialist
> Carl Sagan was left of center politically
> So is P.Z. Myers
Those aren't the most illustrious and well known public advocates for
evolution. Gould, yes. But he wasn't a Marxist. The others are not
particularly famous as evolution advocates. Dawkins is the only one in
Gould's league, but you seem to have forgotten him.
> There does seem to be a positive correlation between advocacy of the ToE
> and left-wing political views.
I suggest that there is merely a positive correlation between education
and left-wing political views.
> Not all those who accept the ToE are
> left-wingers (I'm not, and neither are John Derbyshire or Charles
> Krauthammer); but it would appear that most are.
Based on that bizarre sample? You would need to do better.
bpuharic
wrote:
absolutely agree. which is a problem for creationists who say that
creationism forbids slavery...
Stuart
Sure Haeckel over interpreted his data, and his law of terminal
addition was
laughably wrong along with few other things. None the less, Baleen
whales develop tooth]buds as an
embryo and you sir had pharyngeal arches as an embryo.
also the vestigial organ
> error;
Such as? I suspect you are not clear on what the term "vestigial"
means.
the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist
> uses to prove his position), etc.Let me dwell on the fossil record
> since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
It is.
> • Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma
> said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
> paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted
> there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like
> creature to man!
Kitts doesn't know what he is talking about or more likely, this is a
bullshit quote.
> • Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its
> abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume
> that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact.
> (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist
> but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of
> an apostate preacher!)
Actually this is what Gould had to say about creationists quoting him
out of context:
This what S. J. Gould has to say, and creationists often tout Gould as
saying
there are no transitional foms...
In Hen's teeth and Horse's Toes pgs 258-260 :
"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy
of their
own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to
buttress their
rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am for I have
become a
major target of these practices.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibria largely to provide a
different
explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we
argued,
cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but
must arise
from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we
argued,
is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than
rolling
up an inclined plane.
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the
theory of
punctuated equlibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard
Goldschmidt,
a great early geneticist. (Note: Hopeful monsters. SAW)
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to
be quoted again and again by creationists, whether through design or
stupidity,
I do not know as admitting that the fossil record record includes no
transitional forms. Transistional forms are generally lacking at the
species
level, but they are abundant between larger groups"
From Dinosaur in a Haystack, Gould has some more to say about
creatobabblers..
"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains
the
fundamental canard of antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are
rare, to be
sure, and for two good sets of reasons geological (gappiness of the
fossil
record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary
change... ) But
paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of
intermediary forms
and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair minded sceptic
about the
reality of life's physical genealogy.
Later on..
Still our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a
favorite
argument, refuse to yeild and continue to assert the absence of all
transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found and
continuing to
taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.
<snip>
Stuart
Garamond Lethe
Here is an alternate explanation: controversy sells books, and Christian
defenders of evolution aren't nearly as controversial as atheist defenders
of evolution.
As to your question of "how many?", the first reference that came to
hand was this:
jewishresearch.org/PDFs2/FacultyReligion07.pdf
I haven't used it before and don't know how good it is, but nothing is
setting off any alarms. A few quotes:
"Most faculty believe in God, but atheism is significantly
more prevalent among faculty than the general public."
(pg. 1)
"Faculty feel warmly about most religious groups,
but feel coldly about evangelicals and Mormons."
(Feel "coldly"? Sigh.... pg.2.)
"The largest religious group among faculty is non-Evangelical
Christians, 25%, followed by Catholics, 18%, those with no religion,
14%, Evangelical Christians, 11%, atheists, 8%, Jews, 5%, Unitarians,
3%, and Buddhists, 2%. Muslims, Hindus and “other” are each
around 1%. Ten percent of faculty preferred not to answer."
(pg. 3)
See page 25 for a breakout by discipline.
Burkhard
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 8:34 pm, Mike Rogers <tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> >> need evolution to be true.
> > FALSEHOOD #1
> > Atheists don't believe in God.
> >> William provine, an evolutionary biologist
> >> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
> >> devised by man.
>
> > Well bully for Provine. Many evolutionary biologists disagree with him
> > and see no conflict between their faith and the findings of science.
>
> How many???
>
> As I understand it, most evolutionary biologists who are members of the
> AAAS are atheists.
if true, why does this not simply show that science/education is a
engine of atheism
Not all, but most. Certainly most scientists (or
> those with scientific training) on this NG are atheists, yes?
According to adman's survey, about 50/50
>
> The OP is wrong in just about everything else he wrote. But his
> empirical observation is correct. There really is a positive correlation
> in the American population between public advocacy of the ToE and
> rejection of religion (which becomes an even far stronger correlation in
> the American community of biologists); and there is even a significant
> correlation between acceptance of the ToE and support for left-wing
> political views.
Any evidence or this? I have never seen any, and from first
principles, the opposite ought to be true. advocates for market
liberalism frequently make proto-Darwinian arguments abut efficiency
(central regulation unnecessary as the market eliminates inefficient
or fraudulent companies as unfit) and indeed the entire notion that
you can ge without any central planner (God or government) highly
compex and efficient solutions ought to appeal to the right just as
much as the left.
>
> It's not a perfect correlation; there are a few exceptions like Ken
> Miller. But even he will admit that his views are not widely shared
> among his peers.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
richardal...@googlemail.com
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 8:34 pm, Mike Rogers <tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> >> need evolution to be true.
> > FALSEHOOD #1
> > Atheists don't believe in God.
> >> William provine, an evolutionary biologist
> >> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
> >> devised by man.
>
> > Well bully for Provine. Many evolutionary biologists disagree with him
> > and see no conflict between their faith and the findings of science.
>
> How many???
>
> As I understand it, most evolutionary biologists who are members of the
> AAAS are atheists.
So what?
> Not all, but most. Certainly most scientists (or
> those with scientific training) on this NG are atheists, yes?
I don't know. However, the fact is that many evolutionary biologists
are religious believers.
>
> The OP is wrong in just about everything else he wrote. But his
> empirical observation is correct.
Correct in what? He calls evolutionary biology the "engine of
atheism", which implies most strongly a causal link. There isn't, as
the fact that many evolutionary biologists are not atheists shows.
> There really is a positive correlation
> in the American population between public advocacy of the ToE and
> rejection of religion (which becomes an even far stronger correlation in
> the American community of biologists);
So what?
> and there is even a significant
> correlation between acceptance of the ToE and support for left-wing
> political views.
What on earth have left-wing political views to do with atheism?
>
> It's not a perfect correlation; there are a few exceptions like Ken
> Miller. But even he will admit that his views are not widely shared
> among his peers.
Again, so what?
RF
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Devils Advocaat
Says the man who reckons new species are formed out of clay, but
cannot offer up a single shred of evidence for this assertion.
Frank J
> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> need evolution to be true.
Bzzz. We're sorry, but that's the incorrect answer. But we have some
nice parting gifts for you, two books, "The Genomic Potential
Hypothesis" and "Independent Birth of Organisms," that will show you
that atheists do not need evolution - Darwinian, Lamarckian, or
otherwise - to be true.
(snip)
Frank J
C'mon, you know that he means that she accepts "microevolution."
Ray at least likes to whine to *us* about other "kinds" of anti-
evolutionist - which alone commands more respect than they do. He even
on occassion challenges them directly. But the horror of being
challenged by a fellow anti-evolutionist usually just gets him banned
from their sites.
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
Boikat
I guess he wandered away from reality before he saw your post. :P
Boikat
Frank J
(snip)
>
> Great Post!
Alas, the quarterback of trolls retires to join Nashton as a mere
cheerleader.
(snip)
Will in New Haven
Most Native American peoples had creation myths. They were, of course,
just as likely to be as valid as Genesis but Genesis had better-armed
believers.
--
Will in New Haven
Augray
<tocr...@gmail.com> wrote in
<893e947f-7603-4c79...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>� Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma
>said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
>paleontology does not provide them...."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote54
>And Lord Zuckerman admitted
>there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like
>creature to man!
>� Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its
>abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."
But that doesn't mean that Gould thought that it doesn't support
change. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.14
>I assume
>that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact.
Where did he do that?
>(I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist
Darwin was trained by some of the best scientists of his day.
>but for the ministry,
Does studying for a Bachelor of Arts degree qualify as training for
the ministry?
>so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of
>an apostate preacher!)
There's no worship involved.
[snip]
>� Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of
>Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a
>great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a
>false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long
>time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar
>'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the
>explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one
>day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the
>history of science."
Note that L�vtrup uses the term "Darwinian" rather than "Evolution".
In the same book, he writes:
Indeed, the nature and the wealth of the corroborating evidence
are such that the theory on the reality of evolution turns out to
be one of the best substantiated theories in biology, perhaps in
the natural sciences. [L�vtrup 1987:7]
And on the same page as the initial quote, L�vtrup writes:
I propose that we adopt the two theories on the mechanism of
evolution advocated in this book because they resolve _all_ the
difficulties facing the micromutation theory in its several
disguises. [emphasis in original]
Hence, L�vtrup isn't arguing against evolution, but Darwin's theory of
evolution.
REFERENCE
L�vtrup, S. 1987. Darwinism: the refutation of a myth. London: Croom
Helm Ltd.
>He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And
>so it is.
It's doubtful he said this. Where is it from?
[snip]
>"Paleontologists have
>paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as
>the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
>account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad
>that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The
>history of most fossil species includes two features particularly
>inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no
>directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the
>fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;
>morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
>appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
>the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and
>'fully formed.'"
>(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Another quote mine. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote14
>� "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, 1981, p. 95)
Yet another quote mine. See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html#quote7
>� "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 Paleontological
>Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
And the quote mining continues:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html#quote8
>� "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by
>themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has
>occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have
>been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology
>and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J.
>Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution,
>like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex
>of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the
>hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't
>even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
>weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is
>compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary
>theories and special creationist theories and even historical
>theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
>review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P.Grass�,
>Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
You guessed it, another quote mine:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html#quote13
[snip]
>� "Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent designer, such
>an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not
>naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd
Shockingly, it's yet another quote mine:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.9
>� The greatest scientific philosopher of all time, Dr. Karl Popper,
>said that evolution is not a law, nor a theory and that it doesn't
>even rise to the level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
>than a metaphysical research program and he was right. And it was he
>who stressed that falsifiability is necessary for genuine science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.17
>� "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of
>phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition..." -
>Steven M. Stanley 1979a
And the quote mines just keep on coming:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.11
>� "As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in
>the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually
>unchanged, only to disappear abruptly..." - Tom Kemp 1985a
I'm sensing a pattern here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote33
>� "Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by
>themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has
>occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have
>been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology
>and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J.
>Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution,
>like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex
>of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the
>hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't
>even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
>weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is
>compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary
>theories and special creationist theories and even historical
>theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
>review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grass�,
>Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html#quote13
>� "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument.
>We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to
>preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view
>our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we
>profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two
>features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most
>species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.
>They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they
>disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
>2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise
>gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears
>all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb,
>1980, p. 181-182)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote14
>� "Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for
>reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they
>cheat. ...If any event in life's history resembles man's creation
>myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when
>� multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology
>and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still
>dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with
>the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic
>cell." (Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature,
>vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), pp. 765-766)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html#quote15
>� If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little
>by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils
>of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them
>and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence
>of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to
>gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock
>strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however,
>geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500
>million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The
>Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote52
[snip]
Mike Lyle
> On Nov 14, 3:53 pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 3:34 pm, Mike Rogers <tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why all the babbling about the left? What does politics have to do
>> with any of this?
>>
>
> Why quote the whole damn pile of gibberish when you are going to do a
> one-line reply? I mean I agree with your reply but even the Bronze-Age
> Hebrews learned to snip. :-,)
It seems to be acceptable in this group. I think they do it to make
perfectly clear that they aren't Nando. Which I'd have thought
unnecessary, on the whole.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
>> Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
>> and put together.
>>
>> I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
>> people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
>> neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
>
> mean that most of it was nonsense? It was predictable that you would
> like it because you're an asshole.
I only checked the first paragraph, and that was copy-pasted from
somebody a couple of years back, so the rest probably was, too.
I imagine Mr Rogers is a drive-by poster: they always use discredited
material, and I've never understood their motivation. Is there some kind
of low-grade evangelical group which awards points to their trainees for
different kinds of preaching? That way it might not matter if the
"research" is as catastrophically bad as in this case.
--
Mike.
Richard Smol
> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
> need evolution to be true.
Nope.
Wow, wrong tight off the bat. Way to go.
RS
Cory Albrecht
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:53:55 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>> On Nov 14, 3:50 pm, Ron O<rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 14, 5:10 pm, John McKendry<jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On Nov 14, 2:34 pm, Mike Rogers<tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false,
> belong to church bodies that also accept evolution?
>
Because Ray is the One True Scott's Man.
:-)
Free Lunch
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
...
Because of its Gene-ious:
Cory Albrecht
> On Nov 14, 2:34 pm, Mike Rogers<tocri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> • Although believers in God don't need evolution to be false, atheists
>> need evolution to be true. William provine, an evolutionary biologist
>> at Cornell university, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism
>> devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard
>> Dawkins, famously said," Darwin made it possible to be an
>> intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic on
>> the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence
>> against evolution.
>> • And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his
>> followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the
>> alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne,
>> Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority –
>> because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years
>> after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who
>> asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race
>> and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler,
>> Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have
>> resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all,
>> evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the
>> animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible
>> teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?
>> evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel's recapitulation theory
>> error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist
>> uses to prove his position), etc.Let me dwell on the fossil record
>> since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
>> said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
>> there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like
>> creature to man!
>> • Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its
>> that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact.
>> an apostate preacher!)
>> • Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have
>> found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and
>> creatures."
>>
>> • Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of
>> Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a
>> great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a
>> false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long
>> time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar
>> 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the
>> explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one
>> day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the
>> so it is.
>>
>> • This isn't science , its treating doubts about evolution as
>> religious heresy. Darwinism, as philosopher and mathematician David
>> Berlinski says, is "the last of the great 19th century mystery
>> religions." The only reason a lot of Christians reject evolution is
>> that we are taught to abjure big fat lies. You can look it up-we have
>> an entire commandment about the importance of not lying.
>>
>> • World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently
>> died), with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an
>> expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized
>> dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen
>> Rose, Texas, "...all this makes evolution impossible." And so it does.
>> • have assumed that the readers here are familiar with all the world
>> famous scientists I have quoted above. All of them! If not, they are
>> really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation
>> discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.
>> • I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that
>> evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of
>> Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-
>> living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
>> said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
>> paleontology does not provide them...."
>> transformation from an ape-like creature to man!"Paleontologists have
>> paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as
>> the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored
>> account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad
>> that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The
>> history of most fossil species includes two features particularly
>> inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no
>> directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the
>> fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;
>> morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
>> appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
>> the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and
>> 'fully formed.'"
>> (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
>> 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, 1981, p. 95)
>> 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 Paleontological
>> Stores," 1982, p. 120-121)
>> themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has
>> occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have
>> been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology
>> and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J.
>> Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution,
>> like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex
>> of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the
>> hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't
>> even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
>> weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is
>> compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary
>> theories and special creationist theories and even historical
>> theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
>> Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
>> are great con men and the story they are telling may be the greatest
>> hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact. -
>> Dr. T. N. Tahmisian
>> • "...we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is
>> not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to
>> accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
>> contrary, that we are forced by our 'a priori' adherence to material
>> causes to create a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
>> no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
>> uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot
>> allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, "Billions and
>> Billions of Demons, The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p.
>> 31
>> an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not
>> naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd
>> said that evolution is not a law, nor a theory and that it doesn't
>> even rise to the level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
>> than a metaphysical research program and he was right. And it was he
>> who stressed that falsifiability is necessary for genuine science.
>> phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition..." -
>> Steven M. Stanley 1979a
>> the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually
>> unchanged, only to disappear abruptly..." - Tom Kemp 1985a
>>
>> themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has
>> occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have
>> been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology
>> and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J.
>> Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution,
>> like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex
>> of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the
>> hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't
>> even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
>>
>> read more »
>
> Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
> and put together.
It's long since been showed that you can't tell the different between
bad science journalism and good science:
<http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/5f3506ade56a1f5f?hl=en>,
<http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/ec6fa7de63f61d76?hl=en>.
>
> I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
> people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
> neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
Adman, my friend - how many times, before this post, have I referred
back to earlier posts of mine where I had previously conclusively
debunked the same crap that you're still spewing out now?
Then again, you never did point out where on Usenet I had lied:
<http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/a068f14608f0787e?hl=en>.
>
> Great Post!
>
>
> --
> Wittness Evolution Being Thrown on the Burn Pile of History with...
>
> The All Seeing I
>
>
>
>
Cory Albrecht
> On Nov 14, 5:35 pm, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 6:32 pm, All-Seeing-I<allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> Well. This was a good piece of journalistic writing. Well researched
>>> and put together.
>>
>>> people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
>>> neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
>>
>> mean that most of it was nonsense? It was predictable that you would
>> like it because you're an asshole.
>
>
> hahaha!
>
> Free Clue: I would rather be an asshole then a whole ass like you
Cute. :-)
At least you have the 1 redeeming feature of having a sense of humour,
unlike Frankie Lee, Gabriel or Andrew. Pity you don't have more. :-)
>
> --
> Wittness Evolution and Whole Asses Being Thrown on the Burn Pile of
lwick...@gmail.com
Ron O
> and put together.
>
> I notice the same old arguments being made by the same old tired
> people against this information; which is synonymous to "neerner
> neerner" while sticking their tongues out of course.
>
>
>
> --
> Wittness Evolution Being Thrown on the Burn Pile of History with...
>
> The All Seeing I
Was All Seeing I Spinny or Madman?
Ron Okimoto
Wolffan
(in article<lKOdnbGxYaRgoebH...@giganews.com>):
> lwick...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I read all of that just cause a needed a couple names on
> > a 3 page paper about evolutionary truths
>
> What exactly do you mean by "evolutionary truths"?
Apparently something which can be found by zombiefying a necrothread from
2009.