Is Evolution A Farce?

[Tertullian]

Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?

[docbaker]

>What are the chances that evolution happened?

Somewhere between 0 and 100%

If you look at the scientific evidence (and I am no expert), I believe
it to be light years closer to 100% than 0.
If you look at the Bible, I believe it to be somewhere between 0 and
100%

[Tertullian]

On Jan 8, 11:15 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >What are the chances that evolution happened?
>
> Somewhere between 0 and 100%

Zero is more likely.

> If you look at the scientific evidence (and I am no expert), I believe
> it to be light years closer to 100% than 0.

Yep and light years is just that, light years.

> If you look at the Bible, I believe it to be somewhere between 0 and
> 100%

I'd say 95%

[dali_70]

> On Jan 8, 11:10 am, Tertullian
>

> > Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
> > from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?

There's no doubt about evolution. The only doubt is among the
superstitious boobs who cling to a bronze age mythology instead of
educating themselves about the science and hard evidence that back
evolution up.
Its a much better explanation than one of the many mythological
stories of some ubber powerful being who used magical powers to pull
the whole thing out of it's fictitious ass.

[Bob T.]

On Jan 8, 9:18 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:15 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >What are the chances that evolution happened?
>
> > Somewhere between 0 and 100%
>
> Zero is more likely.

The chance of evolution having happened is one hundred percent - it
has been observed in the wild and in the laboratory.

>
> > If you look at the scientific evidence (and I am no expert), I believe
> > it to be light years closer to 100% than 0.
>
> Yep and light years is just that, light years.
>
> > If you look at the Bible, I believe it to be somewhere between 0 and
> > 100%
>
> I'd say 95%

The liklihood of the entire Bible being correct is 0%, however we can
be 100% sure that _some_ of the Bible is correct. Was Rome an empire
that ruled over Palestine? Yes, it was!

- Bob T.

>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:10 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved

> > > from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[OldMan]

On Jan 8, 9:10 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
> from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?

Pretty good actually. It seems to be the best current explanation for
the diversity of life on the planet. Would you choose to limit how
God might have worked to populate the earth?

[Observer]

On Jan 8, 9:10 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
> from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?

Observer

The ignorant have not read science the truly stupid will not.




What is Universal Common Descent?

Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living,
terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species
originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a
geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of
one original species or communal gene pool. Genetical "gradualness", a
much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is
dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the
rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are
changes within the range of biological variation expected between two
consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast,
geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872,
pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991,
pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Though gradualness is not a mechanism of
evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible
macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness
necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and
adaptation, briefly discussed below.

Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories

In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically
considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general,
separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed.
Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms
that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of
macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include
such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection,
neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of
genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and
geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that
do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether
microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for
macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is
independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of
the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has
occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard
got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence
recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the
evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating
adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because
of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the
macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural
selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force
vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive
evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands,
regardless.

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory,
abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of
macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In
evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-
replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its
origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific
explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain
everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of
particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work
without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal
gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain
the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be
meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter.
Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological
patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain
the ultimate origin of life.

What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against
physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical
compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical
testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must
not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be
testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions
about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be
incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is
insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations
are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures.
Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the
predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few
other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is
perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism.
The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the
product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what
observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is
wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism
cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is
consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because
no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions.
For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and
scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by
"scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".

In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the
hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each
point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual
biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary
confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one
fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them
are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related
predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each
subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that
unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text
references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common
descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what
should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very
well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 140+
years of intense scientific investigation.

It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific
support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of
macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put,
the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern
biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions
are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares
in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite
possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical
evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it
is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These
empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for
common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for
each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do
I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there
are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.

Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140
years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal
common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity,
and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified
and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact
by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the
biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003;
Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically
with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of
the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent
areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet
been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by
enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations
are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with
biological data.

When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following
pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for
each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential
observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate
explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not
scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible
with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as
supporting scientific evidence.


Regards

Psychonomist

[Tertullian]

On Jan 8, 11:59 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 9:10 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
> > from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?
>
> Observer
>
> The ignorant have not read science the truly stupid will not.

New Definition of Science?
By Thomas Heinze

"Evolution is science, so the schools must teach it. Creationism and
Intelligent Design (ID) are religion, so they must not be taught!" We
have been hearing this kind of rubbish a lot more since President Bush
said he thinks intelligent design should be taught in public schools
in addition to evolution so the students can understand what the
debate is all about.

Mark Bergin in World Magazine lists some of the criticisms: "The
Philadelphia Daily News said widespread acceptance of ID could
undermine the scientific method. The Washington Post suggested that
the president was 'indulging quackery' for political gain. The Los
Angeles Times called the comments 'one more example of the extreme
right's attempt to create a Taliban-like society." (Mark Bergin, Mad
scientists, World Magazine, 8/05,) Evolutionists, who say that Bush
wants religion and what they want is science, use a special definition
of science that eliminates creation: "Science is the search for
natural solutions." Creation by an intelligent Designer is a
supernatural rather than a natural solution. By this contrived
definition, to be "scientific," you have to be an atheist.

Consider this: The heads of some of America's most famous presidents
have been carved from solid rock at Mount Rushmore. If a visiting
evolutionist science professor applied the "search for natural
solutions definition to these heads, he would have to conclude that
they were formed by something natural like weathering and erosion
rather than by intelligent design. If he suggested this, he would be
laughed out of the classroom.

But he does not hesitate to teach his students that the heads of the
real presidents who inspired the statues evolved by accident through
the blind forces of nature. Is he right when he claims that the real
heads of real presidents had no designer? No! Stone cold, dead wrong!

The Rushmore heads only show design on the carved surface. The real
heads show incredible design all the way down to the atoms. Human
heads are made of billions of cells. Inside each cell, wonderful
little machines do much of the work of the cell. Every machine known
to mankind had an intelligent designer, but these cell machines are so
precise and efficient that manmade machines are crude by comparison.
Scientists are studying them, hoping to copy them. For example, a
miniature motor that spins at 100,000 RPM with almost perfect
efficiency is found in some single celled animals that evolutionists
consider "primitive." This is just one of the many kinds of molecular
motors and other molecular machines found even in "simple" cells.
Moreover, the cell's machines are made of some of the most complex and
difficult to produce chemicals in the world, such as protein and RNA.
These materials never occur in nature except when made by living
cells. Yet, evolutionists claim that lucky accidents brought the parts
together and assembled them.

Why would they even consider such a dumb idea? Because their
definition of science makes intelligent design "unscientific".

Hiding the evidence for intelligent design from our students is a
horrible, despicable crime against them. How many students would
believe in evolution today if the evidence that God was the Designer
and Creator had not been hidden from them?

[Tertullian]

Psalm 104: 24, "O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast
thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches."

[Bob T.]

On Jan 8, 10:04 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:59 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 9:10 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
> > > from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?
>
> > Observer
>
> > The ignorant have not read science the truly stupid will not.
>
> New Definition of Science?
> By Thomas Heinze
>
> "Evolution is science, so the schools must teach it. Creationism and
> Intelligent Design (ID) are religion, so they must not be taught!" We
> have been hearing this kind of rubbish a lot more since President Bush
> said he thinks intelligent design should be taught in public schools
> in addition to evolution so the students can understand what the
> debate is all about.

Evolution is science, so it belongs in science class. Religion
belongs in Sunday School.

>
> Mark Bergin in World Magazine lists some of the criticisms: "The
> Philadelphia Daily News said widespread acceptance of ID could
> undermine the scientific method. The Washington Post suggested that
> the president was 'indulging quackery' for political gain. The Los
> Angeles Times called the comments 'one more example of the extreme
> right's attempt to create a Taliban-like society." (Mark Bergin, Mad
> scientists, World Magazine, 8/05,) Evolutionists, who say that Bush
> wants religion and what they want is science, use a special definition
> of science that eliminates creation: "Science is the search for
> natural solutions." Creation by an intelligent Designer is a
> supernatural rather than a natural solution. By this contrived
> definition, to be "scientific," you have to be an atheist.

Wrong. Most Christians in this world also believe that evolution is
the best explanation for the diversity and history of life on Earth.
In order to believe in Creationism you have to be willing to reject a
myriad of observed facts.

>
> Consider this: The heads of some of America's most famous presidents
> have been carved from solid rock at Mount Rushmore. If a visiting
> evolutionist science professor applied the "search for natural
> solutions definition to these heads, he would have to conclude that
> they were formed by something natural like weathering and erosion
> rather than by intelligent design. If he suggested this, he would be
> laughed out of the classroom.
>
> But he does not hesitate to teach his students that the heads of the
> real presidents who inspired the statues evolved by accident through
> the blind forces of nature. Is he right when he claims that the real
> heads of real presidents had no designer? No! Stone cold, dead wrong!

A bold assertion, with nothing to back it up. I disprove you thus:
Right! Absofuckinglutely right!

>
> The Rushmore heads only show design on the carved surface. The real
> heads show incredible design all the way down to the atoms. Human
> heads are made of billions of cells. Inside each cell, wonderful
> little machines do much of the work of the cell. Every machine known
> to mankind had an intelligent designer, but these cell machines are so
> precise and efficient that manmade machines are crude by comparison.

Cells are not machines. They were not designed, they evolved.

> Scientists are studying them, hoping to copy them. For example, a
> miniature motor that spins at 100,000 RPM with almost perfect
> efficiency is found in some single celled animals that evolutionists
> consider "primitive." This is just one of the many kinds of molecular
> motors and other molecular machines found even in "simple" cells.
> Moreover, the cell's machines are made of some of the most complex and
> difficult to produce chemicals in the world, such as protein and RNA.
> These materials never occur in nature except when made by living
> cells. Yet, evolutionists claim that lucky accidents brought the parts
> together and assembled them.

Hmm... I see that you don't actually know anything about evolution.
That explains a lot.

>
> Why would they even consider such a dumb idea? Because their
> definition of science makes intelligent design "unscientific".

It is unscientific - it relies on religious faith instead of
scientific analysis.

>
> Hiding the evidence for intelligent design from our students is a
> horrible, despicable crime against them. How many students would
> believe in evolution today if the evidence that God was the Designer
> and Creator had not been hidden from them?

There is no evidence for "Intelligent Design". If God created us, it
is 100% clear from the physical evidence that evolution is the tool
that He used.

- Bob T.

[Old Nick]

100% you retarded fool

[Bob T.]

How does this psalm contradict OldMan's contention that God used
evolution as His tool? Is there another translation of that psalm
that says "O Lord, how manifold are they works, for they do not in any
way involve mutation or natural selection even though the evidence of
the earth's living riches shows us that they do."?

- Bob T.

[Tertullian]

You're talking like a Catholic BobT. Even the Catholics are divided in
this issue. Some are creationists and some are evolutionists. Even
Pope John Paul II said that evolution is just a theory. If it's a
theory, it's just that.

[Bob T.]

Yes, and some Muslims are creationists and some are evolutionists. So
what? No matter which religion they follow, the creationists are
wrong.

> Even Pope John Paul II said that evolution is just a theory. If it's a theory, it's just that.

Pope John Paul II was not a scientist. Would you consult a physicist
if you were concerned about your sins? Evolution is an observed fact,
like gravity. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for how the
observed process of evolution works, like the Theory of Gravity is the
explanation for how gravity works.

- Bob T.

[scenario_dave]

On Jan 8, 12:18 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:15 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >What are the chances that evolution happened?
>
> > Somewhere between 0 and 100%
>
> Zero is more likely.
>

If there is zero chance of evolution then every organism on earth is
the same as their parents and grandparents except for superficial
changes, going back for thousands of years.

I'm curious if any of the evolution deniers ever refused to take
modern antibiotics because if there is no evolution than germs can't
change, and the antibiotics used during WWII should work just fine
today. Why waste the money to get the fancy new ones?

> > If you look at the scientific evidence (and I am no expert), I believe
> > it to be light years closer to 100% than 0.
>
> Yep and light years is just that, light years.
>
> > If you look at the Bible, I believe it to be somewhere between 0 and
> > 100%
>
> I'd say 95%
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:10 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved

> > > from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?- Hide quoted text -
>

[Tertullian]

On Jan 8, 12:34 pm, scenario_dave <scenario_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:18 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:15 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >What are the chances that evolution happened?
>
> > > Somewhere between 0 and 100%
>
> > Zero is more likely.
>
> If there is zero chance of evolution then every organism on earth is
> the same as their parents and grandparents except for superficial
> changes, going back for thousands of years.

Zero is more likely.

> I'm curious if any of the evolution deniers ever refused to take
> modern antibiotics because if there is no evolution than germs can't
> change, and the antibiotics used during WWII should work just fine
> today. Why waste the money to get the fancy new ones?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped
nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor
Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of
Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later
Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific
Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

[chazworth]

But you do look incredibly like a monkey - take look in the fucking
mirror you shit throwing dolt.

[Answer_42]

On Jan 8, 12:10 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
> from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?

Evolution is no farce, tough you are one.

And for the umpteenth time, Liam, we did no evolve from monkeys, maybe
you did?
_______________________________
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jan 8, 9:10 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
> from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?

Hi Liam. You look like a monkey too. Well, an ape, at least, because
monkeys have tails and apes don't. But maybe you can't tell the
difference because your love for The Monkees has caused brain damage?

[Turner Hayes]

I'm willing to accept that you have not evolved beyond an amoeba, Liam.

[Foxjazz]

Yea, what he said. I think the monkeys evolved from us!

Or maybe we just had the same great grandfather.

[OldMan]

On Jan 8, 10:13 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Very good! Now, are you still going to limit what God can do? And
how he can do it?

[Tertullian]

Nope, God can do anything, even create humans with souls. God is
limitless.

[Tertullian]

Time and time again, as more discoveries are made, evolutionists have
failed in every aspect, that evolution could have taken place. Neither
could the evolutionists produce a useful protein or amino acid to
prove that mutations can have good effects and cause evolution. After
thousands of experiments, they cannot prove anything.

The evolution theory has no solid scientific basis because of the lack
of evidence to refute the wide gap in theory of the fossil records.

Evolution is more of an ideology. It is unproved and will always be
the unprovable fairy tale of grown ups.

[Tertullian]

On Jan 8, 1:03 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm willing to accept that you have not evolved beyond an amoeba,

"Poor wittle atheist"

[Turner Hayes]

Yup, pretty much the response we'd expect from an amoeba.

 

[Bob T.]

On Jan 8, 2:00 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:34 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> Time and time again, as more discoveries are made, evolutionists have
> failed in every aspect, that evolution could have taken place. Neither
> could the evolutionists produce a useful protein or amino acid to
> prove that mutations can have good effects and cause evolution. After
> thousands of experiments, they cannot prove anything.

You could not be more wrong. Evolution has been confirmed by a
hundred and fifty years of scientific testing. "Nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution." *

>
> The evolution theory has no solid scientific basis because of the lack
> of evidence to refute the wide gap in theory of the fossil records.

Which gap is that? Just in the past few years scientists have
discovered significant fossils of "missing links" between dinosaurs &
birds and between fish & amphibians.

>
> Evolution is more of an ideology. It is unproved and will always be
> the unprovable fairy tale of grown ups.

Nonsense. Evolution is science, proven time and time again by
repeated testing. You, sir, are the one who believes in fairy tales.

- Bob T.

* I have forgotten who said that first, and I've probably misquoted it
slightly.

[stevesmarsh@gmail.com]

If you ask any intelligent person who doesn't interject theology into
science, it is a fact, it is no longer a theory. There are many
example of evolution, things are continually evolving, some animals
can evolve in one generation to adapt to a changing enviroment. The
only proof you have of creation is a book written by a bunch of
IGNORANT people over two thousands years ago. They also believed the
sun went around the earth with all the other planets, stars and the
whole universe, that the earth was the center of the universe. The
had many absurd beliefs, but you and others continue to hold on to
this religion that most likely will be the biggest con in the history
of man. It will eventually put into the same category of Zeus, Apollo
and the other gods that preceded and existed alongside Christianity.
There is longer a question of evolution, only the religious people
refusing to accept it, because it is one more nail in the coffin
proving the bible is a bunch of ridiculous stories that only a total
moron would believe literally. Not only don't I believe it word for
word though, I think the concept of some being creating the universe
and then demanding we praise, acknowledge and worship it is absurd,
and if it was true then your god is not benevolent, but cruel, saying
we are too stupid to understand why innocent babies are born into this
world only to experience horrible pain until they die within hours is
a cop out. That is the same reasoning all the religious people use,
we can't understand the mind of god or how he works, we have to
believe, it is called faith. Sounds like blind stupid faith to me.
But I digress, to even teach intelligent design does great harm to our
country and the future of it. If you want to fall behind in science
to the rest of the modern world, then keep teaching fantasies. A
professor of genetics that taught the Gov of Louisiana once, gave a
speech asking him not to sign the bill. Reminding him that biology
and genetics don't make any sense without evolution, but Jindel (? sp)
signed the bill anyway. Even the association of all the biology
teachers sent him a letter asking him not to sign it, saying that they
could not teach biology if they couldn't teach evolution without
intelligent design, that saying there is a possibility of intelligent
design makes everything else moot. Why even look for answers if you
maintain that it was all created 6000 years ago, if that is the case,
then all of our science is an illusion. But as we know, relativity is
correct, time does slow down when your velocity increases and mass
turns into energy at the speed of light. We have proved that. Only
evolution explains what we have learned about biology and genetics,
your intelligent design is a bunch of stupid morons making up
fantasies. It may be able to be taught in elementary school, even
first semester of biology, but when you get to college courses,
especially graduate courses in biology and genetics, if you don't
accept evolution, you don't believe in science, you can't understand
the couses. It is as if you say 1 plus 1 don't equal 2, but then you
want the teachers to teach math to your children, keep believing in
your fantasies, otherwise you can't cope with reality.

You need evolution to explain genetics, how we evolve from each
other, how you evolve to changing enviroments. If you live in Africa
you develop a darker skin to protect your body, a very simplistic
explanation that anyone can understand. People who live way up north
where there is much less sunlight, their skin is much light, white,
because they not only don't need the protection, but they need to be
able to absord as much sun light as possible for the energy your body
needs. That is what evolution is, that life has the ability to adapt
to the enviroment, some cases take thousands of years for things to
change, some only take a few generations. Give it up, only people who
refuse to accept the reality of the world don't believe in evolution.
You belong in the museum that shows dinosaurs and man living
together. Too bad it not only is absurd since man is only a few
million years old, and the dinosaurs died off millions of years
before, I forgot, you believe everything was created 6000 years ago,
can'tt agrue with delusiional people.

[OldMan]

Good. So you have no reason to believe that God could not, if he was
so amind to, have created a self sustaining universe about 14BYA which
ultimately produced the planet we live on and populated this planet
with a wide variety of life forms using the process described by the
Theory of Evolution? Note that the Theroy of Evolution is limited to
explaining the diversity of life, not the origin of life or the
universe.

[good4usoul@gmail.com]

> limitless.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The difficulty is not that he could, so much as why would he? Why
would God create the world with an illusion of billions of years of
history, and then require that people ignore all that evidence and
interpret one or two books in Genesis a particular way in order to
understand that all of that evidence is false?

I think Bob T, Old Man and I agree that it's fine for you to worship
God, but it seems folly to worship a dishonest god. God may have
created man in his own image, but he also created logic, and he
created eyes and ears.

Proverbs 20:12 Ears that hear and eyes that see— the LORD has made
them both.

..and he created a lot of wonderful things that we can discover if we
bother to approach it honestly--with a fear of God instead of a fear
of Hell.

[hardlyhome@mindless.com]

On Jan 9, 8:07 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2:00 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:34 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Time and time again, as more discoveries are made, evolutionists have
> > failed in every aspect, that evolution could have taken place. Neither
> > could the evolutionists produce a useful protein or amino acid to
> > prove that mutations can have good effects and cause evolution. After
> > thousands of experiments, they cannot prove anything.
>
> You could not be more wrong.  Evolution has been confirmed by a
> hundred and fifty years of scientific testing.  "Nothing in biology
> makes sense except in the light of evolution." *

> * I have forgotten who said that first, and I've probably misquoted it
> slightly.

I just checked and it looks like you have the quote word perfect. It
was Theodosius Dobzhansky (sp?) who said this.

Oh and Tertullian, you can teach ID in the science classroom when I
can teach evolution at Sunday school. Fair enough?

Have fun,
Craig

[rappoccio]

On Jan 8, 12:10 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
> from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?

100%. It's as certain as gravity.

Actually, I take it back. It's MORE certain than gravity. We know
gravity is false. Evolution has been observed, so it occurred (since
it occurs).

[rappoccio]

On Jan 8, 1:38 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:34 pm, scenario_dave <scenario_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:18 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 11:15 am, docbaker <ejmue...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >What are the chances that evolution happened?
>
> > > > Somewhere between 0 and 100%
>
> > > Zero is more likely.
>
> > If there is zero chance of evolution then every organism on earth is
> > the same as their parents and grandparents except for superficial
> > changes, going back for thousands of years.
>
> Zero is more likely.
>
> > I'm curious if any of the evolution deniers ever refused to take
> > modern antibiotics because if there is no evolution than germs can't
> > change, and the antibiotics used during WWII should work just fine
> > today. Why waste the money to get the fancy new ones?
>
> "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped
> nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor
> Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of
> Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later
> Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific
> Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Theodosius Dobzhansky

[Observer]

Observer

Poor stupid fuck !

Evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Scientific theory of evolution)


This article is about evolution in biology. For other uses, see
Evolution (disambiguation).
"Theory of evolution" redirects here. For more on how evolution is
defined, see Evolution as theory and fact.
For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the
topic, see Introduction to evolution.
Part of the Biology series on
Evolution


In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a
population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes
are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation,
reproduction, and selection. Genes that are passed on to an organism's
offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of
evolution. These traits vary within populations, with organisms
showing heritable differences in their traits. When organisms
reproduce, their offspring may have new or altered traits. These new
traits arise in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from
the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In
species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also
produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation
between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences
become more common or rare in a population.
Two major mechanisms drive evolution. The first is natural selection,
a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and
reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits
to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous
traits are more likely to reproduce, so that more individuals in the
next generation inherit these traits.[1][2] Over many generations,
adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random
changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited
for their environment.[3] The second major mechanism is genetic drift,
an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency
of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role
probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as
individuals survive and reproduce. Though the changes produced in any
one generation by drift and selection are small, differences
accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause
substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in
the emergence of new species.[4] Indeed, the similarities between
organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common
ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual
divergence.[1]
Evolutionary biology documents the fact that evolution occurs, and
also develops and tests theories that explain its causes. Studies of
the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms had convinced
most scientists by the mid-nineteenth century that species changed
over time.[5][6] However, the mechanism driving these changes remained
unclear until the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin
of Species, detailing the theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]
Darwin's work soon led to overwhelming acceptance of evolution within
the scientific community.[8][9][10][11] In the 1930s, Darwinian
natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the
modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] in which the connection between the
units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural
selection) was made. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory
directs research by constantly raising new questions, and it has
become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a
unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[9][10][13]

Now place your fufking ignorance born of superstitious filth against
the best minds in the world and gret your stupid ass handed to you.

Read some of this brilliant Scientists works
Richard Dawkins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Dawkins" redirects here. For other people with this surname, see
Dawkins (surname).
Richard Dawkins

Dawkins at the University of Texas at Austin, March 2008
Born Clinton Richard Dawkins
26 March 1941 (age 67)
Nairobi, Colony of Kenya
Residence Oxford, England
Nationality British
Fields Ethologist and evolutionary biologist
Institutions University of California, Berkeley
University of Oxford
New College, Oxford
Alma mater Balliol College, Oxford
Doctoral advisor Nikolaas Tinbergen
Doctoral students Alan Grafen
Mark Ridley
Known for Advocacy of atheism and rationalism
Criticism of religion
Gene-centred view of evolution
Introduction of meme concept
Notable awards Zoological Society Silver Medal (1989)
Faraday Award (1990)
Kistler Prize (2001)
Religious stance No religion/Atheist
Notes
Fellow of the Royal Society
Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature
Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is a British
ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He is a
professorial fellow of New College, Oxford.[1][2][3]
Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which
popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term
meme. In 1982, he made a widely cited contribution to evolutionary
biology with the theory, presented in his book The Extended Phenotype,
that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to
an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment,
including the bodies of other organisms.
Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design.
In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the
watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural
creator based upon the observed complexity of living organisms, and
instead described evolutionary processes as being analogous to a blind
watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and
has made regular appearances on television and radio programmes,
predominantly discussing the aforementioned topics.
Dawkins is an atheist,[4][5][6] secular humanist, sceptic, scientific
rationalist,[7] and supporter of the Brights movement.[8] He has
widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler",[9][10]
by analogy with English biologist T. H. Huxley, who was known as
"Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of natural selection. In his 2006
book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator
almost certainly does not exist and that faith qualifies as a delusion
- as a fixed false belief.[11] As of November 2007, the English
language version had sold more than 1.5 million copies and had been
translated into 31 other languages,[12] making it his most popular
book to date.


[hide]
v * d * e
Richard Dawkins
Books
The Selfish Gene (1976) · The Extended Phenotype (1982) · The Blind
Watchmaker (1986) · River out of Eden (1995) · Climbing Mount
Improbable (1996) · Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) · A Devil's Chaplain
(2003) · The Ancestor's Tale (2004) · The God Delusion (2006)

Related works
Growing Up in the Universe (1991) · Dawkins vs. Gould (2001) · Beyond
Belief (2006) · Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We
Think (2006) · The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing (2008)
Documentaries
Break the Science Barrier (1996) · The Atheism Tapes (2004) · The Root
of All Evil? (2006) · The Enemies of Reason (2007) · The Genius of
Charles Darwin (2008)
See also
Meme · Out Campaign · Gerin oil · Foundation for Reason and Science ·
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit · Lalla Ward · Frameshift · Weasel program
· Marian Stamp Dawkins · Go God Go · Go God Go XII

Of course you will not because you are simply too stupid to do so.

Psychonomist

[chazworth]

Yes a god could have done this, but it would deny the entire creeds of
all world religions. Thus your god would not be the god of redemption,
salvation. He would be the god of randomness and purposelessness.

[trog69]

> Pope John Paul II was not a scientist. Would you consult a physicist
> if you were concerned about your sins?

Well, at the Discovery Institute, they accept the opinions of lawyers
about the facts of ID, along with engineers. What they have a really
hard time finding, are biologists willing to take their money just to
lie about evolution.

[trog69]

Hey Hey we're the nitwits...

[trog69]

> Evolution is more of an ideology. It is unproved and will always be
> the unprovable fairy tale of grown ups.

Bob T., please look again at this statement by Totallygone. This is
not the words of someone who cares if evolution is true or not;
Turtlebrains knows that it contradicts much of the bible's assertions,
and that cannot stand.

[good4usoul@gmail.com]

> salvation. He would be the god of randomness and purposelessness.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Creeds that rely on authoritarianism in the hands of blind guides are
not good things.
But also believing in randomness and purposelessness is not a good
thing.
But the god of redemption of salvation is not the god of
authoritarianism and blind guides.

[good4usoul@gmail.com]

On Jan 9, 8:20 am, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pope John Paul II was not a scientist.  Would you consult a physicist
> > if you were concerned about your sins?
>
> Well, at the Discovery Institute, they accept the opinions of lawyers
> about the facts of ID, along with engineers. What they have a really
> hard time finding, are biologists willing to take their money just to
> lie about evolution.
>
> On Jan 8, 11:34 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>

A good scientist looks at the quality of the argument and the data,
regardless of the source. An atheist scientist believes in his
senses. A Christian scientist realizes all of the data, and all of
the logic is from God.

On the other hand, the Creationist takes a common misinterpretation of
Genesis and ignores data and logic and seeks out the bondage of
authoritarian clergy who agree with their interpretation of Genesis,
ignoring the sacrifices Jesus made to free people from precisely such
bondage.

[trog69]

> On the other hand, the Creationist takes a common misinterpretation of
> Genesis

Seems to me that they're just going by what God said.

On Jan 9, 7:20 am, "good4us...@gmail.com" <good4us...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[chazworth]

On Jan 9, 2:11 pm, "good4us...@gmail.com" <good4us...@gmail.com>
wrote:

But that is the one which is a fiction, fool.

[BlueSci]

Guys, could we please stop with the Liam accusations? It's not
getting us anywhere and just cluttering the group with useless crap
(and we already have enough of that).

Besides, Tertullian isn't Liam, he's Roger "asshat" Pearse.

[Sketch System]

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Meanwhile, humans did not evolve
from monkeys, and the TOE makes no such claim.

It's so funny that the theist argument against the TOE is always an
argument from ignorance.

[Sketch System]

On Jan 8, 10:25 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You're talking like a Catholic BobT. Even the Catholics are divided in

> this issue. Some are creationists and some are evolutionists. Even

> Pope John Paul II said that evolution is just a theory. If it's a
> theory, it's just that.

You clearly don't understand what the word "theory" means. The theory
of gravity is a theory. Does that mean that that gravity probably
doesn't exist?

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. The theory of evolution attempts
to explain the forces behind this observed phenomenon.

[zencycle]

oh lookey!, the asshat attempting to provoke atheists again!

[zencycle]

On Jan 8, 1:38 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.

"god is a fairy tale for children and morons" - me, 2009

[zencycle]

On Jan 9, 9:11 am, "good4us...@gmail.com"

>
>> But the god of redemption of salvation is not the god of
> authoritarianism and blind guides.

So there's more than one?

[zencycle]

On Jan 8, 5:00 pm, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Time and time again, as more discoveries are made, evolutionists have
> failed in every aspect, that evolution could have taken place.

Wow, don't get out much, do you asshat....You are _exactly_ wrong.

> Neither
> could the evolutionists produce a useful protein or amino acid to
> prove that mutations can have good effects and cause evolution. After
> thousands of experiments, they cannot prove anything.

And again, this has been done, you simply choose to ignore it.

> The evolution theory has no solid scientific basis because of the lack
> of evidence to refute the wide gap in theory of the fossil records.

These 'gaps' get filled in and made smaller every day.

> Evolution is more of an ideology. It is unproved and will always be
> the unprovable fairy tale of grown ups.

REligion is an ideology. It is unproven and will always be the
unprovable fairy tale of children and morons.

[zencycle]

On Jan 8, 1:51 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And for the umpteenth time, Liam,

tertullian isn't liam. It's roger 'asshat' pearce.

I know, like it make's a difference....

[zencycle]

On Jan 8, 2:01 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 8, 9:10 am, Tertullian <RogerTertull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you look like monkeys that you all believe that you evolved
> > from them. What are the chances that evolution happened?
>

> Hi Liam.

[Answer_42]

On Jan 9, 2:36 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:

> > And for the umpteenth time, Liam,
>
> tertullian isn't liam. It's roger 'asshat' pearce.
>
> I know, like it make's a difference....

It is getting confusing...

Why do these thetards always create new sock puppets?

Have atheists a history of doing this in this group, or is it just
the thetards?
________________________________
There is in every village a torch: the schoolmaster -- and an
extinguisher: the parson.
-- Victor Hugo

[zencycle]

On Jan 9, 2:48 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why do these thetards always create new sock puppets?
>
> Have atheists a  history of doing this in this group, or is it just
> the thetards?

they (we) change IDs from time to time, but we don't hide the fact
that it's the same person under a new ID. Asshat probably won't
respond the the 'revelation', but his attempt at a new ID was so
transparent I'm finding difficult to believe he was engaging in
subterfuge, of course, I could be wrong, he _really_ be that stupid.

[Alex Sio]

You have piqued my interest. Who are Liam and Roger "Asshat" Pearse
(Pearce)?

[Dev]

Maybe thetards should become honest people for a change.

Just a suggestion.

[philosophy]

Just a couple of Theists. One who was banned, but both coming
back under different names because they crap the shit out of
us atheists - it's a big game for them - a reflection of their
maturity, I suppose. You can so a search on them if you like
and see what comes up.

[OldMan]

On Jan 9, 2:02 am, chazworth <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 1:29 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Good.  So you have no reason to believe that God could not, if he was
> > so amind to, have created a self sustaining universe about 14BYA which
> > ultimately produced the planet we live on and populated this planet
> > with a wide variety of life forms using the process described by the
> > Theory of Evolution?  Note that the Theroy of Evolution is limited to
> > explaining the diversity of life, not the origin of life or the
> > universe.
>
> Yes a god could have done this, but it would deny the entire creeds of
> all world religions. Thus your god would not be the god of redemption,
> salvation. He would be the god of randomness and purposelessness.

It does not deny my beliefs at all, although it has caused them to
change some.