Criticisms of Evolution

[Viktor Tandofsky]

Criticisms of Evolution


"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." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

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

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
member Philip Skell


"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:

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

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

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

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy

[a322x1n]

Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2e5ad2fa-849e-453f...@googlegroups.com:

> Criticisms of Evolution

Snipped at very start of very first lie. Why repost creationist
nonsense?

Bottom line: Evolution is pure truth. Creationism is pure bull shit.

[Andrew]

"a322x1n" wrote in message news:XnsABF9F2967D061ti...@69.16.179.50...
> Viktor Tandofsky wrote in news:2e5ad2fa-849e-453f...@googlegroups.com:

>
>> Criticisms of Evolution
>
> Snipped at very start of very first lie. Why repost creationist
> nonsense?

These were statements from scientists and experts in their field
that you snipped.

Since you cannot refute a singe one, you simply plug your ears
and run off, muttering foolishness to yourself as flee away.

Thus you testify to the world that your belief structure is based
upon untruths. And that you are deceived.

But why?

Jesus told us --> why.

"Men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil."
~ Jesus

That's why.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 21:41:36 -0700 (PDT), Viktor Tandofsky
<vtand...@gmail.com> wrote:


Read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

<snip quote mine>

[Andrew]

"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:ve0rgfd355cbdbbna...@4ax.com...

> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>
>
> Read this:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Universal descent has occurred since Creation.

Except that at that time, everything was very
good.

"And God saw every thing that He had
made, and behold, it was very good."
~ Genesis 1:31

[Yap Honghor]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 12:41:40 PM UTC+8, Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
> Criticisms of Evolution
>
>
> "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." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

The history has for hundreds of thousands of years concluded that NON-PIXIE HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE SKY and that believers are fools, victims of con religions!!!!

[Vincent Maycock]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 03:30:15 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:

>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:ve0rgfd355cbdbbna...@4ax.com...
>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> Read this:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
>Universal descent has occurred since Creation.

We're talking about universal *common* descent. Don't be dishonest.

>Except that at that time, everything was very
>good.

What does that have to do with the link I posted?

[Andrew]

"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:q12rgf5vg7pliedsp...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>>
>>> Read this:
>>>
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>
>>Universal descent has occurred since Creation.
>
> We're talking about universal *common* descent.

I know that.

> Don't be dishonest.

The dishonesty is what you have been taught.

Without a creation there is nothing to descend
from.

Address that before you run off.

>>Except that at that time, everything was very
>>good.
>
> What does that have to do with the link I posted?

It has to do wih the difference between truth and
falshood.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 04:50:50 GMT, a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote:

>Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:2e5ad2fa-849e-453f...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Criticisms of Evolution
>
>Snipped at very start of very first lie. Why repost creationist
>nonsense?

Because it's a psychopathic game for him to post what he knows is
nonsensical bullshit that is nothing to do with atheism, to try and
annoy a minority foe whom he has an irrational hatred.

>Bottom line: Evolution is pure truth. Creationism is pure bull shit.

And no matter how much he keeps doing it, it is nothing whatsoever to
do with atheism.

[Christopher A. Lee]

It was a common, out-of context quote amounting to a deliberate lie,
especially as he, Andrew, Jesper and the other Liars For God have had
it corrected over and over again.

[Lucifer]

But why did God make men that way?

[Lucifer]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 03:30:15 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:

>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:ve0rgfd355cbdbbna...@4ax.com...
>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> Read this:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
>Universal descent has occurred since Creation.

Another of God's ~failures~.

>Except that at that time, everything was very
>good.
>
> "And God saw every thing that He had
> made, and behold, it was very good."
> ~ Genesis 1:31

God sets ~very low standards~ for himself.

[John Locke]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 21:41:36 -0700 (PDT), Viktor Tandofsky
<vtand...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Criticisms of Evolution
>
...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context, unqualified
quotes you want but evolution theory remains the same...a fact
of nature supported by mountains of verifiable evidence across
multiple scientific disciplines including paleontology, comparative
anatomy, genetics and embryology.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action,
rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith!
Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me
eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge! -Robert G. Ingersoll
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 08:12:00 -0700, John Locke
<johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 21:41:36 -0700 (PDT), Viktor Tandofsky
><vtand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Criticisms of Evolution
>>
>...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context, unqualified
>quotes you want but evolution theory remains the same...a fact
>of nature supported by mountains of verifiable evidence across
>multiple scientific disciplines including paleontology, comparative
>anatomy, genetics and embryology.

Which he knows is nothing to do with atheism and vice versa...

...so why do he and the other deluded fanatics keep obsessively
posting their lies about something that is nothing to do with atheism,
to an atheist audience?

Is he still pretending he doesn't understand why we realised long ago,
that he is seriously mentally ill - and this is just one of the
reasons.

[Andrew]

"John Locke" wrote in message news:teirgft7n6j5nu40u...@4ax.com...

> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>
>>Criticisms of Evolution
>>
> ...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context, unqualified

> quotes you want..

Folks, notice here that atheists passionately hate quotes
from scientists and experts that expose their deceptions.

> but evolution theory remains the same...a fact

Explain where it started, apart from a Creation, and
without using fantasy.

Don't you ever think of that?

Explain.

> of nature supported by mountains of verifiable evidence across
> multiple scientific disciplines including paleontology, comparative
> anatomy, genetics and embryology.

Explain where it started apart from a
Creation, and without using fantasy.

You can't.

[Andrew]

"John Locke" wrote in message news:teirgft7n6j5nu40u...@4ax.com...

> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>
>>Criticisms of Evolution
>>
> ...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context, unqualified

> quotes you want..

Folks, notice here that atheists passionately hate quotes
from scientists and experts that expose their deceptions.

> but evolution theory remains the same...a fact

Explain where it started apart from a Creation, and

without using fantasy. Don't you ever think of that?

Explain.

> of nature supported by mountains of verifiable evidence across
> multiple scientific disciplines including paleontology, comparative
> anatomy, genetics and embryology.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Monday, July 13, 2020 at 9:41:40 PM UTC-7, Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
> Criticisms of Evolution
>
>
> "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." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
>

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Way_of_the_Master
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian

The article referenced a quote attributed to Dr. T. N. Tahmisian that is frequently used by Ray Comfort and countless other creationists:
“”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.

Then, the article goes on to day "Not only is the opinion of a single nuclear scientist of questionable relevance, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian does not appear to be a real person." and references a usenet discussion thread.

However, Theodore N. Tahmisian does indeed exist (or, rather, he did, as he apparently died in 1986). He was a physiologist for the United States Atomic Energy Commission and worked at the Argonne Laboratory in Indiana. He apparently wrote some cranky things about evolution in the late 1950s that has been quote mined by the creationists for a long time. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

> "We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
> accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
> a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
> Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
> University, in an Oxford University Press text.
>
> "Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
> fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
> clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
> model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
> the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
> None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
> mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
> biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
> scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
> for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
> member Philip Skell
>

Skell is another Discovery Institute shill.

>
> "[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
> half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
> the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
> Sciences member Lynn Margulis
>
> "Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
> numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
> --Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse
>

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html
Grasse and the "Myth of Evolution"

Even until the 1970s there was at least one famous French scientist of the "old school," Pierre P. Grasse, who continued to voice strong reservations concerning Darwin's particular explanation (and the Neo-Darwinian explanation) of "how" evolution occurred. Not surprisingly, Grasse is quoted FIVE TIMES in The Revised Quote Book, because he wrote of the "myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon."

However, the editors of The Revised Quote Book neglect to tell their readers that in the same book by Grasse from which they have quoted, Grasse also stated in the most unequivocal terms: "Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships] ... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and ... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)

Of course, Grasse also tipped his hat to the French "father of evolution," Lamarck, stating: "Lamarckism, which is no less logical than Darwinism ... is a tempting theory ... and we would not be surprised to learn from molecular biology that some of its [Lamarckism's] intuitions are partly true...it should be considered today a way of thinking, of understanding nature, rather than a strict doctrine entirely oriented toward the explaining of evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, p. 8)

The authors of The Revised Quote Book lifted Grasse's phrase, "the myth of evolution," out of context, trying to deceive others into believing that Grasse was doubtful of evolution even though he stated he "agreed" with the "nearly unanimous" scientific consensus that "evolution" was an historical scientific "fact." Grasse simply disagreed with explanations of exactly "how" evolution occurred. He felt the "how" part was not a "simple, understood, and explained phenomenon."

E.T. BABINSKI

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html
Quote #41

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)

[Following right after]

"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

> "Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal
> tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the
> various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The
> father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese
>
> "Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record
> first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is
> therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
> diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology
> Textbook
>
> "It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined
> with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of
> new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized
> functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated
> molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two
> leading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
>
> "New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
> connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
> --Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr
His theory of peripatric speciation (a more precise form of allopatric speciation which he advanced), based on his work on birds, is still considered a leading mode of speciation, and was the theoretical underpinning for the theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. Mayr is sometimes credited with inventing modern philosophy of biology, particularly the part related to evolutionary biology, which he distinguished from physics due to its introduction of (natural) history into science.

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

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

Linton is part of the Discovery Institute and therefore not a trustworthy source since he is also a religious loon.

> Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
> thing in 2002:
>
> "Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
> of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
> paleontologists, still has never been traced."
>

No evidence for the above quote being said by Lynn Margulis who was an evolutionary biologist. Dorian Sagan was a Science Fiction writer.

> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
> whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy

https://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/three-darwin-quote-mines-corrected/

Quote #3 Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy.

Context This quote comes from a letter from Darwin to his mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell, from 23 November 1859, whilst On the Origin of Species was being published. Darwin expressed how much it means to him that he has Lyell’s support, and here is the quote in context: “I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting doctrine of modification in your new Edition. Nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely:—to have maintained, in the position of a master, one side of a question for 30 years & then deliberately give it up, is a fact, to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for think-ing of the many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often & often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth like you & Hooker can be wholly wrong; & therefore I feel that I may rest in peace.” Here we have another instance of a very telling sentence being omitted from a quote, Darwin stating that he did not feel that he had been devoting himself to a phantasy.



Nice work Art, now you have once again shown how utterly stupid and despicable you are. Quote-mining is not a legitimate or truthful way to make one's case.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Monday, July 13, 2020 at 9:41:40 PM UTC-7, Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
> Criticisms of Evolution
>
>

If you're going to criticize evolution it would be better if you used real biologists and not quote-mined blurbs that are easily traced for context.

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:rejvf3$1mco$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "a322x1n" wrote in message
> news:XnsABF9F2967D061ti...@69.16.179.50...
>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote in
>> news:2e5ad2fa-849e-453f...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Criticisms of Evolution
>>
>> Snipped at very start of very first lie. Why repost creationist
>> nonsense?
>
> These were statements from scientists and experts in their field
> that you snipped.

Bull shit, they're from no such people. Stop your lying crap.
Everytime you open your shitty mouth, filth comes out.

> Since you cannot refute a singe one, you simply plug your ears
> and run off, muttering foolishness to yourself as flee away.

You are an ignorant, stupid ass fool. Embrace evolution or shut up.

> Thus you testify to the world that your belief structure is based
> upon untruths. And that you are deceived.

Evolution is pure truth. You are a deceiver of the worst wort, you
are a deliberate, conscious liar. Go fuck yourself!

> But why?

> Jesus told us --> why.

"Jesus" is a stinking lie. No such person ever existed. Take your
"Jesus" and stick him up your ass, and spin.

> "Men loved darkness rather than light,
> because their deeds were evil."

> ~ Jesus bull shit.

> That's why.

That's why your a lying bull shitter that doesn't know his head from
a hole in the ground.

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:rek0fi$73n$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "Vincent Maycock" wrote in message
> news:ve0rgfd355cbdbbna...@4ax.com...
>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>
>> Read this:
>>

>> http://www.talkorigans.org/faqs/comdasc/

>
> Universal descent has occurred since Creation.
>
> Except that at that time, everything was very
> good.
>
> "And God saw every thing that He had
> made, and behold, it was very good."
> ~ Genesis 1:31

What a lie. The real creator was a giant bowl of
flying pasta!!!

[Vincent Maycock]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 04:09:02 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:

>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:q12rgf5vg7pliedsp...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Read this:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>>
>>>Universal descent has occurred since Creation.
>>
>> We're talking about universal *common* descent.
>
>I know that.
>
>> Don't be dishonest.
>
>The dishonesty is what you have been taught.

So the word "common" just slipped from your mind as you posted,
conveniently making it look like your opponent agreed with you?

>Without a creation there is nothing to descend
>from.

But plenty to descend to.

>Address that before you run off.

You haven't proved that abiogenesis is impossible.

>>>Except that at that time, everything was very
>>>good.
>>
>> What does that have to do with the link I posted?
>
>It has to do wih the difference between truth and
>falshood.

Many things correspond to that difference. Perhaps could you be more
specific?

[Syd M.]

Why? So you can ignore it again?

PDW

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Monday, July 13, 2020 at 9:41:40 PM UTC-7, Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
> Criticisms of Evolution
>
>

<snip list of quote mining and lies>

If only you could get these organizations to agree.
LOL
https://www.aclu.org/other/what-scientific-community-says-about-evolution-and-intelligent-design



> The Case Against "Intelligent Design"

National Academy of Sciences
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history.

American Association of University Professors
"The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world. [...] The American Association of University Professors deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."

American Association for the Advancement of Science
The [intelligent design] movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution... the lack of scientific warrant for so-called intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education.

American Anthropological Association
The Association respects the right of people to hold diverse religious beliefs, including those who reject evolution as matters of theology or faith. Such beliefs should not be presented as science, however.Science describes and explains the natural world: it does not prove or disprove beliefs about the supernatural.

American Astronomical Society
Science is not based on faith, nor does it preclude faith. Whatever personal beliefs teachers, students, parents or administrators may hold, the teaching of important scientific concepts, such as the formation and aging of planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe, should not be altered or constrained in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines.

National Association of Biology Teachers
Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called creation science,' scientific creationism,' intelligent design theory,' young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.

Geological Society of America
In recent years, certain individuals motivated by religious views have mounted an attack on evolution. This group favors what it calls creation science,' which is not really science at all because it invokes supernatural phenomena. Science, in contrast, is based on observations of the natural world. All beliefs that entail supernatural creation, including the idea known as intelligent design, fall within the domain of religion rather than science. For this reason, they must be excluded from science courses in our public schools.

The American Chemical Society
Evolution cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation.The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science and compromises a central purpose of public educationthe preparation of a scientifically literate workforce.

American Institute of Biological Sciences
The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. Explanations for the origin of life and the development of species that are not supportable on scientific grounds should not be taught as science.

The Paleontological Society
Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it must be taught in public school science classes. In contrast, creationism is religion rather than science, as ruled in recent court cases, because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested. Consequently, creationism in any form (including scientific creationism, creation science, and intelligent design) must be excluded from public school science classes. Because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes.

Botanical Society of America
Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.

Many other scientific organizations are opposed to teaching intelligent design as a science-based alternative to evolution, including:
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
Ohio Academy of Science
Ohio Math and Science Coalition
Oklahoma Academy of Sciences
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Society for Amateur Scientists
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society for Neuroscience
Society for Organic Petrology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Physics Students
Society of Systematic Biologists
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Southern Anthropological Society
Virginia Academy of Science
West Virginia Academy of Science
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Psychological Association
American Physical Society
American Society of Parasitologists
Association for Women Geoscientists
Australian Academy of Science
California Academy of Sciences
Ecological Society of America
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society of America
Georgia Academy of Science
History of Science Society
Iowa Academy of Science
Kentucky Paleontological Society
Louisiana Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
North American Benthological Society
North Carolina Academy of Science

[John Locke]

..yes I can. The natural origin of life, followed by billions of years
of evolution happened right here on planet earth...AND there was no
stinking god involved. There you go.

[John Locke]

...exactly. It's been explained ad nauseam. It's a waste of time
when he keeps pulling magic rabbits out of his god's ass.

[John Locke]

...good research on the bogus quotes, Cloud ! I'm filing this away for
future reference.

[Lucifer]

Now we see what you are getting at.
You are not saying evolution did not happen.
You are saying evolution doesn't explain the origin of life,
which nobody disputes.

[Lucifer]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 17:07:37 -0400, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 04:09:02 -0700, "Andrew"
><andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:q12rgf5vg7pliedsp...@4ax.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>>>
>>>>Universal descent has occurred since Creation.
>>>
>>> We're talking about universal *common* descent.
>>
>>I know that.
>>
>>> Don't be dishonest.
>>
>>The dishonesty is what you have been taught.
>
>So the word "common" just slipped from your mind as you posted,
>conveniently making it look like your opponent agreed with you?
>
>>Without a creation there is nothing to descend
>>from.
>
>But plenty to descend to.
>
>>Address that before you run off.
>
>You haven't proved that abiogenesis is impossible.

That was proven long ago.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:rekvds$1it1$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "John Locke" wrote in message
> news:teirgft7n6j5nu40u...@4ax.com...
>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>
>>>Criticisms of Evolution
>>>
>> ...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context, unqualified
>> quotes you want..
>
> Folks, notice here that atheists passionately hate quotes
> from scientists and experts that expose their deceptions.
>
>> but evolution theory remains the same...a fact
>
> Explain where it started apart from a Creation, and
> without using fantasy.

Explain how many years ago this "creation" happened.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

On Monday, July 13, 2020 at 9:50:52 PM UTC-7, a322x1n wrote:
> Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in

> news:2e5ad2fa-849e-453f...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > Criticisms of Evolution
>
> Snipped at very start of very first lie. Why repost creationist
> nonsense?
>

> Bottom line: Evolution is pure truth. Creationism is pure bull shit.

They are not Creationists. They are scientists.

[a322x1n]

Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:74ec6dfe-9aba-48aa...@googlegroups.com:

Bull shit! They're creationists pretending to be scientists, and
you know it. So, crawl back under your creationist rock and dream
up new lying bull shit.

[Mitchell Holman]

Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in news:74ec6dfe-9aba-48aa-
a21c-c283...@googlegroups.com:

Don't you find it odd that no college of any
faith has a Dept of Creation Science?

Who are these "scientists" and what are they
researching?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 08:03:12 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@verizont.net> wrote:

>Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in news:74ec6dfe-9aba-48aa-
>a21c-c283...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Monday, July 13, 2020 at 9:50:52 PM UTC-7, a322x1n wrote:
>>> Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:2e5ad2fa-849e-453f...@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> > Criticisms of Evolution
>>>
>>> Snipped at very start of very first lie. Why repost creationist
>>> nonsense?
>>>
>>> Bottom line: Evolution is pure truth. Creationism is pure bull shit.
>>
>> They are not Creationists. They are scientists.

An outright lie.

Evolution and its understanding use the same scientific method as the
rest of science.

Anybody who denies evolution, the facts and the theory which explains
it, cannot be practicing science.

> Don't you find it odd that no college of any
>faith has a Dept of Creation Science?
>
> Who are these "scientists" and what are they
>researching?

Kent Hovind's alma mater...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:PatriotU_Crop.jpg

>
>
>
>

[aaa]

That's only the Atheist ignorant imagination. It's only the evidence of
their own utter ignorance. Atheism is the outrageous declaration of the
atheist ignorance, and the atheists are proud of it. What a shame of
human intellect! All animals in the jungle are laughing their asses off
for such human stupidity.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!

[Viktor Tandofsky]

If you read their comments, you'll see their objections are very scientific.

[Mitchell Holman]

Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:d4189869-92ec-487d...@googlegroups.com:

Post some of these "scientific" comments.

Then explain why no other scientists take
them seriously.

[Andrew]

"Syd M." wrote in message news:02b39ea5-ade5-495a...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "John Locke" wrote:
>> > Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>> >
>> >>Criticisms of Evolution
>> >>
>> > ...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context, unqualified
>> > quotes you want..
>>
>> Folks, notice here that atheists passionately hate quotes
>> from scientists and experts that expose their deceptions.
>>
>> > but evolution theory remains the same...a fact
>>
>> Explain where it started apart from a Creation, and
>> without using fantasy. Don't you ever think of that?
>>
>> Explain.
>>
>> > of nature supported by mountains of verifiable evidence across
>> > multiple scientific disciplines including paleontology, comparative
>> > anatomy, genetics and embryology.
>>
>> Explain where it started apart from a
>> Creation, and without using fantasy.
>>
>> You can't.
>
> Why? So you can ignore it again?

Just answer the question.

You can't.

However you can...if resort to unscientific fantasy.

And by so doing, you testify to us that you believe
in --> unscientific fantasy.

[John Locke]

...the only "fantasy" is creationism/ID..which has been debunked
and dismantled in all respects. No credible university on the planet
has a curriculum of creationism/ID and never will because
that nonsense is not testable thus not verifiable thus not science.
It's just religon. That's all. And that dog don't hunt !

[Cloud Hobbit]

You can criticize evolution all you want, it will not have any effect unless you can replace it with something that can be demonstrated to be a better, more accurate description of how life changes over time, which is still evolution. You want to criticize Darwin's theory without another explanation based in science and the scientific method. Without an alternative explanation, ToE will stand because it answers questions and has not been scientifically refuted.

Nothing else even comes close to describing change over time. Nothing else has anything approaching the accuracy of Darwin's theory.

ID is not now and never will be anything other than theist whining over demonstrable, observable, evidence.

The first person to demonstrate the accuracy of some other theory must have evidence. None exists for ID.

[Andrew]

"John Locke" wrote in message news:fvpugfd9l2alo5o3j...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

Yet it remains as the -only- origins model in accord with the
evidence. Which should tell any honest searcher for TRUTH,
that this ---> IS ~the correct~ origins model.

> which has been debunked and dismantled in all respects.

Except with science.

> No credible university on the planet
> has a curriculum of creationism/ID and never will because
> that nonsense is not testable thus not verifiable thus not science.

Is the origins model that you subscribe
to-->observable, testable and verifiable?

No? That's right.

Yet you fail to realize that you have been deceived.

> It's just religon. That's all. And that dog don't hunt !

But you are the *believer* in the model
that is built upon --> unscientific fantasy.

Lol!

And by so doing you have exposed your gullibility
to all.

[Yap Honghor]

If they are scientists, how can they be creationists as well...they would be out of job!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Viktor Tandofsky]

That's the biggest crock of BS I ever heard. Critics of evolution can point out it's defects without replacing it with anything.
You fucking evolution pushers have nothing but insults and arrogant baseless claims. You can't convince anybody of anything. There would be no critics of evolution if you arrogant clowns were not so incompetent at explaining it.

[Andrew]

"John Locke" wrote in message news:gmhsgf95e8b7osgm1...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"John Locke" wrote:

>>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>Criticisms of Evolution
>>>>
>>> ...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context, unqualified
>>> quotes you want..
>>
>>Folks, notice here that atheists passionately hate quotes
>>from scientists and experts that expose their deceptions.
>>
>>> but evolution theory remains the same...a fact
>>
>>Explain where it started apart from a Creation, and
>>without using fantasy. Don't you ever think of that?
>>
>>Explain.
>>
>>> of nature supported by mountains of verifiable evidence across
>>> multiple scientific disciplines including paleontology, comparative
>>> anatomy, genetics and embryology.
>>
>>Explain where it started apart from a
>>Creation, and without using fantasy.
>>
>>You can't.
>>
> ..yes I can. The natural origin of life, followed by
> billions of years of evolution

Is your position observable, testable and verifiable?

Or is it rather based on unscientific fantasy?

Fantasy right?

Oh yes!

And you fail to realize that you have been
--> deceived.

[%]

oh come on , you've heard bigger crocks than that

[Viktor Tandofsky]

Now you are LYING. Numerous criticisms of evolution have been presented that have nothing to do with ID or creationism. You can't accept the fact that the theory of evolution is deeply flawed. It only gains wide acceptance through social pressure and intimidation. I'm just an accountant, not a scientist, and even I can readily see that it's not even logical. Accepting the evidence for your vercochte theory requires a leap of faith.Nobody has ever seen these fucking ancient animals you babble about and the evidence for them is spotty at best. Fake fossils have been made and sold for centuries. Only timid, gullible conformists blindly accept anything they are told and that's what you evos are.

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:renl7p$cdc$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Creationism is unscientific fantasy. Evolution is
scientific truth. End of story. Any questions?

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:reo6ms$154a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Evolution has been tested and observed many, many
times over the last 200 years. Evolution is a
proven fact. Creationism has been disproven many
times. End of story. Any questions?

[a322x1n]

Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:4b684402-2113-4991...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 1:38:38 PM UTC-7, John Locke wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:42:56 -0700, "Andrew"
>> <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Syd M." wrote in message

>> >news:02b39ea5-ade5-495a-a7cc-b46857c29cf5o@goo

Evolution is proven fact. Creationism/ID is a proven lie. End of
story. Any questions?

P.S. You don't even know what Evolution is.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

You're right. Several come to mind:(1)A fetus is not a human life (2)The Democratic Party works for people (3) Gun control prevents crime (4)masks will keep out viruses that are so small that they can't been seen without an electron microscope.(5)Political correctness (6)Conservatives are all racists

[a322x1n]

Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:ea194656-f8b0-4b48...@googlegroups.com:

Do matter how much bull shit you dream up, Evolution is still the proven
truth, and creationism/ID is still a proven lie. End of story. Any
questions.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

Of course, you cannot prove any of that. It's just more of your useless hot air.

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:reo7no$1fc5$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Bull shit. Evolution has been tested, observed, and
verified many times over the last 200 years. Creationism/ID
has been proven false. End of story. Any questions?

Try not to let the big words give you a headache:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

[a322x1n]

Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:ca38c6c7-45d9-473b...@googlegroups.com:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

Don't let the big words give you a headache.

[a322x1n]

Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:53cc7b33-2688-49cf...@googlegroups.com:

And each one is exactly correct.

P.S. Religion is filth.

[Andrew]

"a322x1n" <vo...@void.void> wrote in message news:XnsABFBCAC8A7E10ti...@69.16.179.50...

Yet Creation remains the -only- origins model in
accord with the evidence. Which should tell the
honest searcher for TRUTH, that *Creation* is
the ~correct~ origins model.

[Andrew]

"a322x1n" <vo...@void.void> wrote in message news:XnsABFBCB22F5384ti...@69.16.179.50...

> Evolution is proven fact. Creationism/ID is a proven lie. End of
> story. Any questions?

Repeating your mindless mantra does not make it the truth.

[Andrew]

"a322x1n" wrote in message news:XnsABFBCA3D69A95ti...@69.16.179.50...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Syd M." wrote:

The fact that you refuse to address the hard
questions tells us that you argue against the
truth.

[Andrew]

"a322x1n" wrote in message news:XnsABFBCC5F137A0ti...@69.16.179.50...

> Evolution has been tested, observed, and
> verified many times over the last 200 years.

No, not the Darwinian fantasy.

"We must concede that there are presently no
detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution
of any biochemical or cellular system, only a
variety of wishful speculations."
~ Harold, Franklin M.
prof. biochemistry

[Yap Honghor]

And where is your pixie when it has been constantly mocked by us?
And you theists fail to defend it with serious argument...except to juggle with inane excuses!

[Yap Honghor]

1. If fetus is a life, you are eating life every day through omelette!
2. If Democrats don't work for people, why their candidates elected to WH?
3. Gun control will prevent easy access especially for people like you!
4. And the advice is from expert through experiments.
5. What about political correctness? You mean BLM is not an issue?
6. Conservatives follow long held traditional culture of racism since the slavery.

[Andrew]

"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:4694b2b7-bffd-4c2d...@googlegroups.com...

> You can criticize evolution all you want, it will not have any effect unless you can replace it with something
> that can be demonstrated to be a better, more accurate description of how life changes over time,

It has always been changing over time - since the beginning of time itself.

> which is still evolution. You want to criticize Darwin's theory without another explanation based in science
> and the scientific method.

Darwin's theory was not real science. The basic structure of his theory was really only a phantasy. He knew it.

His mortal frame rippled with the awful thought.

"Often and often a cold shudder has run through
me, and I have asked myself whether I may not
have devoted my life to a phantasy." ~ Darwin

How sad, his whole life given up to a phantasy.

But you? You should know better.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsABFB7F2B755...@216.166.97.131...
> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:

>>> > a322x1n wrote:
>>> >> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Criticisms of Evolution
>>> >>

>>> >> Snipped at very start of very first lie. Why repost creationist
>>> >> nonsense?
>>> >>
>>> >> Bottom line: Evolution is pure truth. Creationism is pure bull
>>> >> shit.
>>> >
>>> > They are not Creationists. They are scientists.
>>>

>>> Don't you find it odd that no college of any
>>> faith has a Dept of Creation Science?
>>>
>>> Who are these "scientists" and what are they
>>> researching?
>>
>> If you read their comments, you'll see their objections are very
>> scientific.
>
> Post some of these "scientific" comments.

He already did.

> Then explain why no other scientists take
> them seriously.

Not true.

So the real question here is why are you still
deceived?

Because you believe fantasy rather than solid
facts.

Your gullibility is also a factor in this.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsABFB50EC4AE...@216.166.97.131...

> Who are these "scientists" and what are they
> researching?

The greatest scientists of all time were creationists.

They were correct, because that's what the evidence
tells us.

[Andrew]

"a322x1n" wrote in message news:XnsABFB8B63A5AFti...@69.16.179.50...

> Viktor Tandofsky wrote: >
>> a322x1n wrote:
>>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>> > Criticisms of Evolution
>>>
>>> Snipped at very start of very first lie. Why repost creationist
>>> nonsense?
>>>
>>> Bottom line: Evolution is pure truth. Creationism is pure bull
>>> shit.
>>
>> They are not Creationists. They are scientists.
>

> Bull shit! They're creationists pretending to be scientists, and
> you know it. So, crawl back under your creationist rock and dream
> up new lying bull shit.

Stephen Jay Gould was certainly not a creationist.

Neither was Ernst Mayr who was another eminent
evolutionary biologist

Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan were evolutionary
biologists.

And Charles Darwin who was also cited, we know
was certainly not a creationist.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 9:37:02 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 08:12:00 -0700, John Locke
> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:

>
> >On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 21:41:36 -0700 (PDT), Viktor Tandofsky
> ><vtand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Criticisms of Evolution
> >>
> >...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context, unqualified

> >quotes you want but evolution theory remains the same...a fact

> >of nature supported by mountains of verifiable evidence across
> >multiple scientific disciplines including paleontology, comparative
> >anatomy, genetics and embryology.

> Which he knows is nothing to do with atheism and vice versa...
>
> ...so why do he and the other deluded fanatics keep obsessively
> posting their lies about something that is nothing to do with atheism,
> to an atheist audience?
>
> Is he still pretending he doesn't understand why we realised long ago,
> that he is seriously mentally ill - and this is just one of the
> reasons.
I don't give a shit what you think you realize, you pathetic piece of shit.

[LinuxGal]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, Andrew wrote:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsABFB50EC4AE...@216.166.97.131...
>
>> Who are these "scientists" and what are they
>> researching?
>
> The greatest scientists of all time were creationists.

The choice was that or the rack.

--
Linux Geeks: Smart. Single. Sexy.
Well, two out of three ain't bad!

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

[Don Martin]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:52:51 GMT, a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote to
Androol:

>> However you can...if resort to unscientific fantasy.
>>
>> And by so doing, you testify to us that you believe
>> in --> unscientific fantasy.
>
>Creationism is unscientific fantasy. Evolution is
>scientific truth. End of story. Any questions?

Androol does not _do_ questions; he's good at sweeping assertions,
though.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:rep3df$15j8$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsABFB50EC4AE...@216.166.97.131...
>
>> Who are these "scientists" and what are they
>> researching?
>
> The greatest scientists of all time were creationists.
>

Back when there was no proof to the contrary.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:reoivq$oqs$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

"Ten thousand years ago, there were no dairy
cows, no ferret hounds, no large ears of corn.
When we domesticated the ancestors of those
plants and animals, we controlled their
breeding. We made sure that certain properties,
considered by us to be desireable, were
preferentially reproduced. The enormous
distended udders of dairy cattle are the
result of human interest in milk and cheese.
Our corn has been bred for ten thousand
generations to more tasty and nutritious than
its scrawny natural ancestor; indeed, it is so
changed that it cannot even reproduce without
human intervention. If artificial selection
can make such major changes in so short a
period of time, what can natural selection,
working over billions of years, be capable of?
The answer is all the beauty and diversity of
the biological world.
Evolution is fact, not theory."

Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p 27

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsABFC50AB1B6...@216.166.97.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "a322x1n" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:

And where did it all start? ---> Creation.

[Andrew]

"Don Martin" wrote in message news:ole0hf1ho4lspqdnj...@4ax.com...

> vo...@void.void> wrote to
> Androol:
>
>>> However you can...if resort to unscientific fantasy.
>>>
>>> And by so doing, you testify to us that you believe
>>> in --> unscientific fantasy.
>>
>>Creationism is unscientific fantasy. Evolution is
>>scientific truth. End of story. Any questions?
>
> Androol does not _do_ questions; he's good
> at sweeping assertions, though.

Question: Why are you folks ~ so gullible?

Really!

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsABFC5040AB9...@216.166.97.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>
>>> Who are these "scientists" and what are they
>>> researching?
>>
>> The greatest scientists of all time were creationists.
>
> Back when there was no proof to the contrary.

There will always be ~ no proof to the contrary.

[John Locke]

...question...why do you ignore and deny mountains of verifiable
evidence supported by every university and research center on the
planet and confirmed across multiple scientific disciplines including
genetics, embryology, paleontology and comparative anatomy ?

...and THEN you try to substitute debunked, religiously infested
pseudo-science for real science !

Really !


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action,
rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith!
Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me
eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge! -Robert G. Ingersoll
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[John Locke]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:58:40 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:

>"John Locke" wrote in message news:gmhsgf95e8b7osgm1...@4ax.com...

..no YOU'VE been deceived. We don't have all the answers about the
origin of life...YET, but we have some good ideas and successful lab
work that point to a natural origin...NOT a supernatural origin. And
YES, although only small pieces of the puzzle, the lab experiments are
observable, testable and verifiable !

[Andrew]

"John Locke" wrote in message news:svp0hf9e2e48857p5...@4ax.com...

>"Andrew" wrote:
>>"Don Martin" wrote: in

>>> vo...@void.void> wrote to
>>> Androol:
>>>
>>>>> However you can...if resort to unscientific fantasy.
>>>>>
>>>>> And by so doing, you testify to us that you believe
>>>>> in --> unscientific fantasy.
>>>>
>>>>Creationism is unscientific fantasy. Evolution is
>>>>scientific truth. End of story. Any questions?
>>>
>>> Androol does not _do_ questions; he's good
>>> at sweeping assertions, though.
>>
>>Question: Why are you folks ~ so gullible?
>>
>>Really!
>>
> ...question...why do you ignore and deny mountains of verifiable
> evidence

Evidence which you can never produce. If you disagree, then
do so now.

Furthermore, why do YOU ~always~ run away whenever
I ask you to *explain the origin* of biological information
that is in every living thing...without which there would be
no life?

You run away and go into hiding. Why are you so afraid?

You are afraid of the truth which exposes your deception.

The existence of biological information points to a source
of super high intelligence that had purpose. That evidence
is there - worldwide.

> supported by every university and research center on the
> planet and confirmed across multiple scientific disciplines including
> genetics, embryology, paleontology and comparative anatomy ?

True science is observable, repeatable and predictable.

> ...and THEN you try to substitute debunked, religiously infested
> pseudo-science for real science !

Would the observation and statement that your post had
an intelligent causation be a religious statement?

No.

>
> Really !

[Andrew]

"John Locke" wrote in message news:epq0hfhgcp7h4h7ku...@4ax.com...

So sooner or later you think that humans will CREATE life
in the lab.

> And YES, although only small pieces of the puzzle, the lab experiment

> are observable, testable and verifiable !

Proving that the origin of life was --> from a creation.

Thank you.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:repnvj$1870$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Which is your favorite creation story, and why?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:repnth$175a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Which creation is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:repscd$1hou$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

>
>
> True science is observable, repeatable and predictable.

So repeat this "Creation".

Oh, and make it observable this time.......

["Sir Hømer Hall, Esq."]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net> wrote:
>"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote...

>
>> True science is observable, repeatable and predictable.
>
> So repeat this "Creation".
>
> Oh, and make it observable this time.......

You're not the boss of him...

--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregøry

"I went to the wøøds because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the
essential facts of life, and see if I could nøt learn what it had to teach, and
nøt, when I came to die, discover that I had nøt lived." __Henry David Thøreau

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:fjUPG.579101$JY5.5...@fx32.am4:

More nonsense. Is this the only kind of answer
you have?

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:reohok$dga$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "a322x1n" <vo...@void.void> wrote in message
> news:XnsABFBCAC8A7E10ti...@69.16.179.50...
>> "Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
>> news:reo6ms$154a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

>>> "John Locke" wrote in message

>>> news:fvpugfd9l2alo5o3j...@4ax.com...
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:

>>>>>"Syd M." wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew wrote:

>>>>>>> "John Locke" wrote:
>>>>>>> > Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >>Criticisms of Evolution
>>>>>>> >>

>>>>>>> > ...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context,
>>>>>>> > unqualified quotes you want..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks, notice here that atheists passionately hate quotes
>>>>>>> from scientists and experts that expose their deceptions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > but evolution theory remains the same...a fact
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Explain where it started apart from a Creation, and
>>>>>>> without using fantasy. Don't you ever think of that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > of nature supported by mountains of verifiable evidence across
>>>>>>> > multiple scientific disciplines including paleontology,
>>>>>>> > comparative anatomy, genetics and embryology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Explain where it started apart from a
>>>>>>> Creation, and without using fantasy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why? So you can ignore it again?
>>>>>
>>>>>Just answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can't.
>>>>>

>>>>>However you can...if resort to unscientific fantasy.
>>>>>
>>>>>And by so doing, you testify to us that you believe
>>>>>in --> unscientific fantasy.
>>>>>

>>>> ...the only "fantasy" is creationism/ID..
>>>
>>> Yet it remains as the -only- origins model in accord with the
>>> evidence. Which should tell any honest searcher for TRUTH,
>>> that this ---> IS ~the correct~ origins model.
>>>
>>>> which has been debunked and dismantled in all respects.
>>>
>>> Except with science.
>>>
>>>> No credible university on the planet
>>>> has a curriculum of creationism/ID and never will because
>>>> that nonsense is not testable thus not verifiable thus not science.
>>>
>>> Is the origins model that you subscribe
>>> to-->observable, testable and verifiable?
>>>
>>> No? That's right.
>>>
>>> Yet you fail to realize that you have been deceived.
>>>
>>>> It's just religon. That's all. And that dog don't hunt !
>>>
>>> But you are the *believer* in the model
>>> that is built upon --> unscientific fantasy.
>>>
>>> Lol!
>>>
>>> And by so doing you have exposed your gullibility
>>> to all.
>>
>> Evolution has been tested and observed many, many
>> times over the last 200 years. Evolution is a
>> proven fact. Creationism has been disproven many
>> times. End of story. Any questions?
>
> Yet Creation remains the -only- origins model in
> accord with the evidence. Which should tell the
> honest searcher for TRUTH, that *Creation* is
> the ~correct~ origins model.

Bull shit. Did lying come naturally to you, or did
you have to work at it?

P.S. Your "God" is a lie.

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:reoi8t$ie5$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "a322x1n" <vo...@void.void> wrote in message

> news:XnsABFBCB22F5384ti...@69.16.179.50...
>
>> Evolution is proven fact. Creationism/ID is a proven lie. End of
>> story. Any questions?
>
> Repeating your mindless mantra does not make it the truth.

No need. Evolution is the truth. Creationism/ID is a proven lie.

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:reoiis$leg$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "a322x1n" wrote in message
> news:XnsABFBCA3D69A95ti...@69.16.179.50...

>> Creationism is unscientific fantasy. Evolution is

>> scientific truth. End of story. Any questions?
>
> The fact that you refuse to address the hard
> questions tells us that you argue against the
> truth.

Evolution is _proven_. Creationism/ID is debunked.

[a322x1n]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:reoivq$oqs$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

> "a322x1n" wrote in message
> news:XnsABFBCC5F137A0ti...@69.16.179.50...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "John Locke" wrote in message
>>> news:gmhsgf95e8b7osgm1...@4ax.com...

>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>"John Locke" wrote:
>>>>>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Criticisms of Evolution
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...you can post all of the out-of-date, out-of-context,
>>>>>> unqualified quotes you want..
>>>>>
>>>>>Folks, notice here that atheists passionately hate quotes
>>>>>from scientists and experts that expose their deceptions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but evolution theory remains the same...a fact
>>>>>
>>>>>Explain where it started apart from a Creation, and
>>>>>without using fantasy. Don't you ever think of that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Explain.
>>>>>
>>>>>> of nature supported by mountains of verifiable evidence across
>>>>>> multiple scientific disciplines including paleontology,
>>>>>> comparative anatomy, genetics and embryology.
>>>>>
>>>>>Explain where it started apart from a
>>>>>Creation, and without using fantasy.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can't.
>>>>>

>>>> ..yes I can. The natural origin of life, followed by
>>>> billions of years of evolution
>>>
>>> Is your position observable, testable and verifiable?
>>>
>>> Or is it rather based on unscientific fantasy?
>>>
>>> Fantasy right?
>>>
>>> Oh yes!
>>>
>>> And you fail to realize that you have been
>>> --> deceived.
>>
>> Evolution has been tested, observed, and
>> verified many times over the last 200 years.
>
> No, not the Darwinian fantasy.
>
> "We must concede that there are presently no
> detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution
> of any biochemical or cellular system, only a
> variety of wishful speculations."
> ~ Harold, Franklin M.

> Total Quack.

Evolution is proven truth. Creationism/ID is a proven lie.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

A lie, under US law, is intentional deception. Let's see you prove the Creationists and IDers know what they say is false. Rotsa Ruck.

[a322x1n]

Viktor Tandofsky <VTand...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e8bdd26e-21ed-40d2...@googlegroups.com:

Creation/ID has been debunked, many times over.

[Viktor Tandofsky]

Proof????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Viktor Tandofsky]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 1:12:44 PM UTC-7, a322x1n wrote:

I said you must prove the IDers and Creationists know what they say is false.
An opinion which disagrees with what they say is insufficient.

[Lucifer]

Creation is observable, testable and verifiable.
OK. Its not observable, nor testable nor verifiable, but dang it,
Andrew really really really wants it to be true.

[a322x1n]

Viktor Tandofsky <VTand...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:da1149da-0555-4f28...@googlegroups.com:

<http://www.whillyard.com/pseudo-science/creationism.html>

<https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/ken-hams-10-facts-th
at-prove-creationism-debunked/>

<https://tinyurl.com/yct4pfcf>

And that's just for starts. Remember always, "God" or "creator" is
lying bull shit.

How do you know a creationist/IDer is lying? His lips are moving,
or his finger is on the "?". Every creationist/IDer knows full
well that creationism/ID is total nonsense. Yet, they are
deliberate, conscious liars who'll try to sell the worst forms of
made up nonsense. Go figure!

[Andrew]

"a322x1n" wrote in message news:XnsABFC9876EF6Bti...@69.16.179.50...
> "Andrew" wrote:

So you plug your ears and run.

Unable to address any hard questions.

Ba bye!

[Andrew]

"a322x1n" wrote in message news:XnsABFC981E3E8CFti...@69.16.179.50...

> P.S. Your "God" is a lie.

____________________

He IS

He WAS.

He IS TO COME.

[Andrew]

"a322x1n" wrote in message news:XnsABFC944308FA1ti...@69.16.179.50...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "a322x1n" wrote:
>>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>>> a322x1n wrote:
>>>>> Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
>>>>> > Criticisms of Evolution
>>>>>
>>>>> Snipped at very start of very first lie. Why repost creationist
>>>>> nonsense?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line: Evolution is pure truth. Creationism is pure bull
>>>>> shit.
>>>>
>>>> They are not Creationists. They are scientists.
>>>
>>> Bull shit! They're creationists pretending to be scientists, and
>>> you know it. So, crawl back under your creationist rock and dream
>>> up new lying bull shit.
>>
>> Stephen Jay Gould was certainly not a creationist.
>>
>> Neither was Ernst Mayr who was another eminent
>> evolutionary biologist
>>
>> Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan were evolutionary
>> biologists.
>>
>> And Charles Darwin who was also cited, we know
>> was certainly not a creationist.
>
> More nonsense. Is this the only kind of answer you have?

Huh?

You said, "they're creationists".

They are NOT creationists.

[Lucifer]

God did come, in Mary to produce Jesus.
We call that the Big Bang.

[John Locke]

...Androol can keep wishing until the sun goes red giant, but nature
will continue to do what nature does irregardless of Androol's
delusions. Creationists DO NOT get to define nature but they sure as
hell are persistent in their foolish attempts.

[Marvin Sebourn]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:00:29 PM UTC-5, Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:42:50 PM UTC-7, % wrote:
> > On 2020-07-15 5:38 p.m., Viktor Tandofsky wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 2:45:09 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > >> You can criticize evolution all you want, it will not have any effect unless you can replace it with something that can be demonstrated to be a better, more accurate description of how life changes over time, which is still evolution. You want to criticize Darwin's theory without another explanation based in science and the scientific method. Without an alternative explanation, ToE will stand because it answers questions and has not been scientifically refuted.
> > >>
> > >> Nothing else even comes close to describing change over time. Nothing else has anything approaching the accuracy of Darwin's theory.
> > >>
> > >> ID is not now and never will be anything other than theist whining over demonstrable, observable, evidence.
> > >>
> > >> The first person to demonstrate the accuracy of some other theory must have evidence. None exists for ID.
> > >
> > > That's the biggest crock of BS I ever heard. Critics of evolution can point out it's defects without replacing it with anything.
> > > You fucking evolution pushers have nothing but insults and arrogant baseless claims. You can't convince anybody of anything. There would be no critics of evolution if you arrogant clowns were not so incompetent at explaining it.
> > >
> > oh come on , you've heard bigger crocks than that
>
> You're right. Several come to mind:(1)A fetus is not a human life (2)The Democratic Party works for people (3) Gun control prevents crime

Joe wrote, as a "crock"
(4)
'masks will keep out viruses that are so small that they can't been seen without an electron microscope".

Joe, is that just another unsubstantiated belief of yours, or do you hold that to be factual, and subject to disproof?

Hint: Before answering, please tell us: Are you aware of the transmission mechanics of the virus, and do you know how masks, particularly the N-95 function?

Marvin Sebourn
Osugeo...@aol.com




(5)Political correctness (6)Conservatives are all racists

[Viktor Tandofsky]

You still haven't figured it out? Some people consider their religion more important than science. They have different priorities than you do. Ain't free thought grand?

[%]

just think of the crock possibilities you could be a crocked pot

[Marvin Sebourn]

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:33:13 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:4694b2b7-bffd-4c2d...@googlegroups.com...

>
> > You can criticize evolution all you want, it will not have any effect unless you can replace it with something
> > that can be demonstrated to be a better, more accurate description of how life changes over time,
>

> It has always been changing over time - since the beginning of time itself.

>
> > which is still evolution. You want to criticize Darwin's theory without another explanation based in science
> > and the scientific method.
>

> Darwin's theory was not real science. The basic structure of his theory was really only a phantasy. He knew it.
>
> His mortal frame rippled with the awful thought.
>

Andrew, cherry-picking a letter of Darwin to Charles Lyell:
> "Often and often a cold shudder has run through
> me, and I have asked myself whether I may not
> have devoted my life to a phantasy." ~ Darwin

The statement in context: "CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire, November 23 [1859].

My dear Lyell,

I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting doctrine of modification in your new Edition. Nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely:—to have maintained, in the position of a master, one side of a question for 30 years & then deliberately give it up, is a fact, to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for think-ing of the many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often & often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth like you & Hooker can be wholly wrong; & therefore I feel that I may rest in peace.”

Andrew, this has likely been shown to you many times.

> How sad, his whole life given up to a phantasy.

How sad, Andrew, that you stoop to deception to try and make your point. You have given up your intellectual integrity for your "phantasy".

> But you? You should know better.

You should know better, but you appear not to. You have often not told the truth about me in the past, and in the present-about two or three weeks ago- you refused to state that you would tell the truth in your further discussions with me.

To quote a poster in this thread

"So you plug your ears and run.
Unable to address any hard questions."

And in the spirit of a post here by the same poster:
~ Your truths are not real truths. The basic structure of your pronouncements and judgements are only a phantasy. And you know it.


Marvin Sebourn
osuge...@aol.com