Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disproving Creation: Evolution and Medicine
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
Dec 27, 2011, 3:47:06 PM12/27/11
to
Andrew
Dec 27, 2011, 6:35:39 PM12/27/11
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
they would have done their work differently if they had
thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the
past century: the discovery of the double helix; the
characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of
genomes; research on medications and drug reactions;
improvements in food production and sanitation; the
development of new surgeries; and others.
I even queried biologists working in areas where one
would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
-- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
the National Academy of Sciences.
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
they would have done their work differently if they had
thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the
past century: the discovery of the double helix; the
characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of
genomes; research on medications and drug reactions;
improvements in food production and sanitation; the
development of new surgeries; and others.
I even queried biologists working in areas where one
would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
-- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
the National Academy of Sciences.
Free Lunch
Dec 27, 2011, 6:56:08 PM12/27/11
to
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:35:39 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Of course Skell is dead and he was not involved in the discipline
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/the-unexpected.html> but that
never bothers religious zealots when they are selling their lies, does
it, Andrew?
You have no idea where the Skell quote came from or what the context is,
but you cheerfully present it as if it matters. You are an ignorant fool
who worships your own ignorance.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/the-unexpected.html> but that
never bothers religious zealots when they are selling their lies, does
it, Andrew?
You have no idea where the Skell quote came from or what the context is,
but you cheerfully present it as if it matters. You are an ignorant fool
who worships your own ignorance.
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 27, 2011, 7:32:36 PM12/27/11
to
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:35:39 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
otherwise.
You know that Darwin's wasn't even the first explanation for it but
the first scientifically derived one, superceding Lamark's theory of
acquired characteristics.
BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU MANY TIMES ALREADY.
So why pretend otherwise?
Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
Which led to discovery and understanding of DNA and what causes it to
mutate.
>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>they would have done their work differently if they had
>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>were all the same: No.
Because the scientific world has long since gone on from Darwin. His
work, while fundamental and important, is now merely part of the
modern synthesis (look it up).
Natural selection is not the be-all-and-end-all, merely a part of it
that is so obvious in retrospect that they don't even give it a
thought.
But then you already know this so who do you keep stupidly posting the
same old bullshit only pig-ignorant and gullible creationists believe?
>I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the
>past century: the discovery of the double helix; the
>characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of
>genomes; research on medications and drug reactions;
>improvements in food production and sanitation; the
>development of new surgeries; and others.
These are all the result of 150 years of solid research since Darwin
into the mechanisms that cause evolution.
And DNA is one of them, as are its applications including mapping the
genome.
>I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
imbecile.
It led to the understanding of the mechanisms that cause it including
DNA.
Which changed the face of modern medicine.
They don't even give Darwin a thought even though it started with him.
And in any many doctors of medicine are more like medical technicians.
But even they give you the lecture about why you should carry on
taking the antibiotics for 30 days after you're back on your feet
again.
>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
Because without evolution whole new sciences and technologies wouldn't
even exist, Because it's DNA which provides the mechanisms for
heredity and mutation that Darwin didn't know but predicted.
And it doesn't "explain any behaviour". It explains how the natural
mutations are filtered out by survival to pass on whatever led to
their survival.
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
Some field that is nothing to do with medical research, biology etc?
mohammad...@gmail.com
Dec 27, 2011, 9:12:43 PM12/27/11
to
On Dec 28, 1:32 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
It's not actually true, Mendel discovered the mechanism of heridity
> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
mainly, and was ignored for about 72 years because of Darwinists. And
the adoption of Mendel initially led to theories of massive change
instead of small incremental change.
In any case, let's be reasonable. Let's have some knowledge about how
creation works. Knowledge about how organisms get to be decided to be
the way they are in freedom, instead of only explanations in terms of
force. You cannot explain origins as a sequence of one came after the
other, you have to trace back to the actual decisions made by which
the organisms were created, and then cultivate subjectivity towards
what made those decisions turn out the way they did. You are here now,
but if decisions turned out differently you would not have been.
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 12:01:29 AM12/28/11
to
>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>they would have done their work differently if they had
>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>were all the same: No.
>
>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>they would have done their work differently if they had
>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>were all the same: No.
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
Professor of CHEMISTRY.
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
evolutionary biologist.
--
"To be saved is to fall into the ludicrous and satanic flippancy of
false piety, kitsch." - Trappist monk Thomas Merton
bpuharic
Dec 28, 2011, 9:01:16 AM12/28/11
to
>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
>
let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
>
the precambrian
and that's what we find
creationism can make no such prediction
so evolution is correct. creationism is magic
Andrew
Dec 28, 2011, 9:01:50 AM12/28/11
to
"Colanth" wrote in message news:qd8lf79a7dfqo7aru...@4ax.com...
But does that have anything to do with the
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>
>>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>were all the same: No.
>>
>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>
> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
> evolutionary biologist.
Because that is what he was taught to believe.
>
>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>
>>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>were all the same: No.
>>
>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>
> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
> evolutionary biologist.
But does that have anything to do with the
bpuharic
Dec 28, 2011, 9:03:01 AM12/28/11
to
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:12:43 -0800 (PST), "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 1:32 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
>> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
>
>It's not actually true, Mendel discovered the mechanism of heridity
>mainly, and was ignored for about 72 years because of Darwinists. And
>the adoption of Mendel initially led to theories of massive change
>instead of small incremental change.
no one knows what this islamist terrorist is babbling about. mendlel's
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 1:32 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
>> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
>
>It's not actually true, Mendel discovered the mechanism of heridity
>mainly, and was ignored for about 72 years because of Darwinists. And
>the adoption of Mendel initially led to theories of massive change
>instead of small incremental change.
work was not appreciated because no one knew its significance. you,
with your islamist, al qaida view of nature, are unable to tell us
anything about nature at all
>
>In any case, let's be reasonable. Let's have some knowledge about how
>creation works
Andrew
Dec 28, 2011, 9:20:49 AM12/28/11
to
"bpuharic" wrote in message news:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
....... which we DO find.
> and that's what we find
We find the Cambrian explosion.
> creationism can make no such prediction
See above.
> so evolution is correct. creationism is magic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
the complex, there should not be any Cambrian explosion filled
with complex life forms.
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
system, I can give no satisfactory answer....the difficulty of assigning
any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
beneath the Cambrian system is very great.....The case at present must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the views here entertained."
-- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>>
>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>
>
> let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
> the precambrian
It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
>>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>>
>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>
>
> let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
> the precambrian
....... which we DO find.
> and that's what we find
> creationism can make no such prediction
> so evolution is correct. creationism is magic
According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
the complex, there should not be any Cambrian explosion filled
with complex life forms.
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
system, I can give no satisfactory answer....the difficulty of assigning
any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
beneath the Cambrian system is very great.....The case at present must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the views here entertained."
-- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10
Devils Advocaat
Dec 28, 2011, 9:39:21 AM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 2:20 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
Why do you and your ilk lie so much?
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 10:17:20 AM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:01:50 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
>"Colanth" wrote in message news:qd8lf79a7dfqo7aru...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>
>>>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>>were all the same: No.
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>>
>> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
>> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
>> evolutionary biologist.
>
>Because that is what he was taught to believe.
Because that's what he, as a researcher, found out.
>But does that have anything to do with the
>development of the latest medical advances?
Everything to do with them.
The fact that you aren't intelligent enough to understand evolution,
Andrew, says loads about you, but nothing about evolution. (That it's
simple enough for an 8 year old to understand makes you look even
worse.)
--
"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead.
Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." - George W. Bush
wrote:
>"Colanth" wrote in message news:qd8lf79a7dfqo7aru...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>
>>>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>>were all the same: No.
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>>
>> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
>> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
>> evolutionary biologist.
>
>Because that is what he was taught to believe.
>But does that have anything to do with the
>development of the latest medical advances?
The fact that you aren't intelligent enough to understand evolution,
Andrew, says loads about you, but nothing about evolution. (That it's
simple enough for an 8 year old to understand makes you look even
worse.)
--
"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead.
Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." - George W. Bush
Free Lunch
Dec 28, 2011, 10:22:32 AM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:01:50 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
context, from a dead man?
Free Lunch
Dec 28, 2011, 10:24:24 AM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:20:49 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"bpuharic" wrote in message news:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>>>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>>>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
>> the precambrian
>
>It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
No, it does not.
>....... which we DO find.
>
>> and that's what we find
>
>We find the Cambrian explosion.
Which is not a problem for evolution, despite your dishonest claim.
>> creationism can make no such prediction
>
>See above.
>
>> so evolution is correct. creationism is magic
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
>the complex, there should not be any Cambrian explosion filled
>with complex life forms.
>
>"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
>belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
>system, I can give no satisfactory answer....the difficulty of assigning
>any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
>beneath the Cambrian system is very great.....The case at present must
>remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
>against the views here entertained."
>
> -- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10
Thanks for quoting Darwin to show us that you were wrong.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"bpuharic" wrote in message news:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>>>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>>>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
>> the precambrian
>
>It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
>....... which we DO find.
>
>> and that's what we find
>
>We find the Cambrian explosion.
>> creationism can make no such prediction
>
>See above.
>
>> so evolution is correct. creationism is magic
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
>the complex, there should not be any Cambrian explosion filled
>with complex life forms.
>
>"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
>belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
>system, I can give no satisfactory answer....the difficulty of assigning
>any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
>beneath the Cambrian system is very great.....The case at present must
>remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
>against the views here entertained."
>
> -- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 28, 2011, 10:43:57 AM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:03:01 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:12:43 -0800 (PST), "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
><mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 28, 1:32 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
>>> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
>>
>>It's not actually true, Mendel discovered the mechanism of heridity
>>mainly, and was ignored for about 72 years because of Darwinists. And
>>the adoption of Mendel initially led to theories of massive change
>>instead of small incremental change.
>
>no one knows what this islamist terrorist is babbling about. mendlel's
>work was not appreciated because no one knew its significance. you,
>with your islamist, al qaida view of nature, are unable to tell us
>anything about nature at all
It's Nando being his usual ignorant, babbling stupid self.
>On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:12:43 -0800 (PST), "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
><mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 28, 1:32 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
>>> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
>>
>>It's not actually true, Mendel discovered the mechanism of heridity
>>mainly, and was ignored for about 72 years because of Darwinists. And
>>the adoption of Mendel initially led to theories of massive change
>>instead of small incremental change.
>
>no one knows what this islamist terrorist is babbling about. mendlel's
>work was not appreciated because no one knew its significance. you,
>with your islamist, al qaida view of nature, are unable to tell us
>anything about nature at all
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 28, 2011, 10:47:18 AM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:20:49 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
>"bpuharic" wrote in message news:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>>>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>>>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
>> the precambrian
>
>It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
>....... which we DO find.
>
>> and that's what we find
>
>We find the Cambrian explosion.
>> creationism can make no such prediction
>
>See above.
>
>> so evolution is correct. creationism is magic
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
>the complex, there should not be any Cambrian explosion filled
>with complex life forms.
>"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
>belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
>system, I can give no satisfactory answer....the difficulty of assigning
>any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
>beneath the Cambrian system is very great.....The case at present must
>remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
>against the views here entertained."
> -- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10
Why not post the whole passage so we can see what you replaced by the
ellipses, so we know what he ACTUALLY said, proven serial liar?
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 28, 2011, 10:50:35 AM12/28/11
to
John Baker
Dec 28, 2011, 11:02:22 AM12/28/11
to
to a Bronze Age fairy tale is an affront to the dignity of the entire
human race. You disgust me.
Now, take your ignorant, stupid cretinist ass out of alt.atheism
before I start flooding your ISP with abuse complaints.
>
Budikka666
Dec 28, 2011, 11:11:18 AM12/28/11
to
On Dec 27, 5:35 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
that it has. But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
*curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>
> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
that it has. But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
*curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 28, 2011, 12:00:40 PM12/28/11
to
denial about reality.
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 1:57:39 PM12/28/11
to
>On Dec 28, 1:32 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
>> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
>
>It's not actually true, Mendel discovered the mechanism of heridity
>mainly
Mendel discovered DNA? Rosalind Franklin would have been SO
>
>> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
>> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
>
>It's not actually true, Mendel discovered the mechanism of heridity
>mainly
disappointed to learn that.
Andrew
Dec 28, 2011, 1:58:17 PM12/28/11
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:64851bee-5d8a-40fb...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
No.
"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Jesus is real, and He does love
you.
>
> Budikka
>
>
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>
>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> that it has.
Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>
>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> that it has.
No.
"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
-- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
the National Academy of Sciences.
Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
the National Academy of Sciences.
> But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
> you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
> *curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
> deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
> children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
>
> So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
No, because your above is a straw man built upon prejudice and
> you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
> *curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
> deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
> children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
>
> So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Jesus is real, and He does love
you.
>
> Budikka
>
>
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 2:02:55 PM12/28/11
to
>"bpuharic" wrote in message news:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>>>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>>>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
>> the precambrian
>
>It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion
"Doesn't predict the Cambrian Explosion" isn't "predicts there should
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>>>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>>>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
>> the precambrian
>
>It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion
be no Cambrian explosion", any more than the fact that your Bible
didn't predict the rain we had here last night means that there's no
God.
>According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
>the complex
>"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
>belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
>system, I can give no satisfactory answer"
"The case at present must remain inexplicable"
And before you claim that "and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the views here entertained." means that he's saying they he's
wrong, he's not. (I'm leaving it to you to figure out what he IS
saying - which means that you'll never know. You're just not
intelligent to understand, Andrew. Don't feel bad - you're smarter
than a dust bunny.)
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 2:03:54 PM12/28/11
to
>On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:12:43 -0800 (PST), "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
><mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 28, 1:32 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
>>> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
>>
>>It's not actually true, Mendel discovered the mechanism of heridity
>>mainly, and was ignored for about 72 years because of Darwinists. And
>>the adoption of Mendel initially led to theories of massive change
>>instead of small incremental change.
>
>no one knows what this islamist terrorist is babbling about.
He's not babbling ABOUT anything, he's just babbling.
><mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 28, 1:32 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Darwin's theory for why evolution happened was the spur to find the
>>> mechanisms of heredity and mutation he predicted.
>>
>>It's not actually true, Mendel discovered the mechanism of heridity
>>mainly, and was ignored for about 72 years because of Darwinists. And
>>the adoption of Mendel initially led to theories of massive change
>>instead of small incremental change.
>
>no one knows what this islamist terrorist is babbling about.
Free Lunch
Dec 28, 2011, 2:07:31 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:58:17 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:64851bee-5d8a-40fb...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>
>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>
>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>> that it has.
>
>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
>No.
>
>"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
You still haven't told us the source of this. I suspect you never saw
the entire quote or the context and are just repeating the nonsense that
other science-haters have been spewing about it. Still, it matters not
what Skell might have said, we can see what the pharmaceutical companies
are doing and they are relying on genetics.
>> But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
>> you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
>> *curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
>> deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
>> children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
>>
>> So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
>
>No, because your above is a straw man built upon prejudice and
>misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Jesus is real, and He does love
>you.
You preach falsehoods and ignore facts. Jesus has nothing to do with the
lies you spew here.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:64851bee-5d8a-40fb...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>
>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>
>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>> that it has.
>
>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
>No.
>
>"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
the entire quote or the context and are just repeating the nonsense that
other science-haters have been spewing about it. Still, it matters not
what Skell might have said, we can see what the pharmaceutical companies
are doing and they are relying on genetics.
>> But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
>> you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
>> *curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
>> deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
>> children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
>>
>> So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
>
>No, because your above is a straw man built upon prejudice and
>misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Jesus is real, and He does love
>you.
lies you spew here.
Loirbaj
Dec 28, 2011, 2:15:15 PM12/28/11
to
Virtually NO aspect of modern medicine
relies on evolution, any more so than their
claims of 188 'vestigial organs' or that
man is related to monkeys etc.
relies on evolution, any more so than their
claims of 188 'vestigial organs' or that
man is related to monkeys etc.
Andrew
Dec 28, 2011, 2:18:33 PM12/28/11
to
"Colanth" wrote in message news:0lcmf79v73m2ag8rl...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
them built upon the Darwinian evolutionary theory.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Colanth" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>
>>>>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>>>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>>>were all the same: No.
>>>>
>>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>>>
>>> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
>>> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
>>> evolutionary biologist.
>>
>>Because that is what he was taught to believe.
>
> Because that's what he, as a researcher, found out.
>
>>But does that have anything to do with the
>>development of the latest medical advances?
>
> Everything to do with them.
Yet you are unable to tell us about a single one of
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>
>>>>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>>>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>>>were all the same: No.
>>>>
>>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>>>
>>> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
>>> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
>>> evolutionary biologist.
>>
>>Because that is what he was taught to believe.
>
> Because that's what he, as a researcher, found out.
>
>>But does that have anything to do with the
>>development of the latest medical advances?
>
> Everything to do with them.
them built upon the Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Free Lunch
Dec 28, 2011, 2:27:15 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:18:33 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
The theory of evolution has gone well past what Darwin discovered.
How do you think they develop flu vaccines?
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
How do you think they develop flu vaccines?
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 28, 2011, 2:52:03 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:58:17 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:64851bee-5d8a-40fb...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>
>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>
>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>> that it has.
>
>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
Evolution HAS, no matter how much you lie about it.
In the form of the modern synthesis of which natural selection is only
a part.
>No.
>
>"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
talking about.
Because Darwin's contributions were natural selection and common
descent.
While natural selection is significant it hardly "benefits research"
because there will always be resistant strains. It does however drive
how antibiotics are used (or should be).
And they don't give a thought to common descent, just the amount of
similarity in the DNA.
In short, it was a stupid question.
>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
research since Darwin, and because the knowledge was gained
exponentially, mostly the recent stuff.
Science has gone on since Darwin, and while his work was
ground-breaking and foundational it is merely part of today's
understanding.
While evolution was originally observed in collected fossils a few
generations before Darwin, his was the first scientific explanation
and was derived mostly from the comparative morphology of modern
specimens and their distribution.
It wasn't controversial even then, outside the church.
These days DNA analysis provides much better confirmation that either
the palaeontology where it was first observed or Darwin's comparative
morphology.
And natural selection has been "relegated" to the mechanism that
filters the changes mutagens make to the chromosomes in the DNA.
In fact the discovery and understanding of DNA and chromosomes led to
the realisation of another means for evolution, genetic drift.
But it still uses the same foundation: DNA and inheritance.
>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
Evolution is a fact.
As is natural selection.
Both these happen.
And common descent is a conclusion rendered beyond dispute by DNA
analysis.
How else are you going to explain things that survive vs those that
don't?
These days the research uses discoveries made in the 150 years or
solid research into the mechanisms of evolution since Darwin's
explanation.
for the umpteenth time, his contribution was natural selection of the
results of small changes which were passed on from parent to child. He
did not know the mechanisms for the last two, just the first.
But he predicted them - and they were found.
And it is these areas that underlie the research, not natural
selection which is an obvious (in retrospect) fact:
That which passes on whatever caused it to survive, passes that on to
the next generation, and if it doesn't survive it doesn't pass
anything on.
The mechanisms for heredity and mutation gave us DNA and biotech, not
to mention understanding the causes of cancer.
And whatever you might pretend, one of the primary applications of
biotech is in modern medicine.
You know all this so why keep lying about it?
Do you seriously expect all this to go away?
Or are you just being dishonest?
Yet again?
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
his religious beliefs?
Perhaps like you he didn't know what evolution is and what its
mechanisms are?
Perhaps like you he was ignorant of the 150 years research since
Darwin and cognitive dissonance made DNA's contribution vanish before
his eyes?
>> But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
>> you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
>> *curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
>> deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
>> children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
>>
>> So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
>
>No, because your above is a straw man built upon prejudice and
>misunderstanding.
> Nevertheless, Jesus is real, and He does love
>you.
once stopped lying since he came to Usenet.
>> Budikka
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 2:59:09 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:27:15 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Or even figured out that new ones had to be created every year?
wrote:
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 2:59:46 PM12/28/11
to
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 28, 2011, 3:10:08 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:18:33 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
How many times do you have to be reminded of this?
And also that evolution was already known a few generations before
Darwin?
As well as that modern medicine is based on the mechanisms of heredity
and mutation that he predicted but didn't know?
What's wrong with you?
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 28, 2011, 3:12:22 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:27:15 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:18:33 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>"Colanth" wrote in message news:0lcmf79v73m2ag8rl...@4ax.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Colanth" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>>>>>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>>>>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>>>>>were all the same: No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>>>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
>>>>> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
>>>>> evolutionary biologist.
>>>>
>>>>Because that is what he was taught to believe.
What a remarkable bit of projection by a pig-ignorant, stupid, lying
creationist.
>>> Because that's what he, as a researcher, found out.
>>>
>>>>But does that have anything to do with the
>>>>development of the latest medical advances?
>>>
>>> Everything to do with them.
>>
>>Yet you are unable to tell us about a single one of
>>them built upon the Darwinian evolutionary theory.
>
>The theory of evolution has gone well past what Darwin discovered.
>
>How do you think they develop flu vaccines?
Andre? Think?
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:18:33 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>"Colanth" wrote in message news:0lcmf79v73m2ag8rl...@4ax.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Colanth" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>>>>>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>>>>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>>>>>were all the same: No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>>>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>>>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
>>>>> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
>>>>> evolutionary biologist.
>>>>
>>>>Because that is what he was taught to believe.
creationist.
>>> Because that's what he, as a researcher, found out.
>>>
>>>>But does that have anything to do with the
>>>>development of the latest medical advances?
>>>
>>> Everything to do with them.
>>
>>Yet you are unable to tell us about a single one of
>>them built upon the Darwinian evolutionary theory.
>
>The theory of evolution has gone well past what Darwin discovered.
>
>How do you think they develop flu vaccines?
Budikka666
Dec 28, 2011, 3:37:11 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 12:58 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:64851bee-5d8a-40fb...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
you're forced, once again, to bear false witness for your LORD.
>
> > But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
> > you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
> > *curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
> > deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
> > children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
>
> > So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
>
> No, because your above is a straw man built upon prejudice and
> misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Jesus is real, and He does love
> you.
And you fled from my debate offer, thereby admitting that your
omnipotent god is completely useless.
How does it feel to be like that Lowlife Loirbaj and deny Christ,
Andrew-a-Blank?
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:64851bee-5d8a-40fb...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> > Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> > of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> > issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> > medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> > that it has.
>
> Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> No.
Once again you offer no supportive evidence thereby admitting that
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> > Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> > of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> > issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> > medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> > that it has.
>
> Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> No.
you're forced, once again, to bear false witness for your LORD.
>
> > But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
> > you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
> > *curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
> > deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
> > children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
>
> > So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
>
> No, because your above is a straw man built upon prejudice and
> misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Jesus is real, and He does love
> you.
omnipotent god is completely useless.
How does it feel to be like that Lowlife Loirbaj and deny Christ,
Andrew-a-Blank?
Budikka
Ralph
Dec 28, 2011, 4:00:53 PM12/28/11
to
problem for the Cambrian Explosion is that creationists can't explain
it, evolution explains it. IF you ever read a book on evolution, written
by actual scientists you would know this.
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 28, 2011, 4:17:29 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:59:09 -0500, Colanth <col...@pern.invalid>
One of Thunderf00t's "Why people Laugh At Creationists" series on
youtube goes into this, but I'm not going to go through thirty-odd ten
minute videos to look for it.
youtube goes into this, but I'm not going to go through thirty-odd ten
minute videos to look for it.
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 4:24:04 PM12/28/11
to
>"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
The opinion of a chemist about evolution carries the same weight as
>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
the opinion of a plumber about evolution. Why do you creationists
think that all scientists' opinions carry the same weight?
Quote an evolutionary biologist who says that EVOLUTION doesn't
happen. Or that no advances in pharmacology have anything to do with
EVOLUTION.
We don't use Darwin's theories these days any more than computer
manufacturers use Leyden jars.
Devils Advocaat
Dec 28, 2011, 4:42:41 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 7:18 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Colanth" wrote in messagenews:0lcmf79v73m2ag8rl...@4ax.com...
Look at this issue from a slightly different perspective.
That of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
In 1945 Alexander Fleming warned that the misuse of antibiotics would
lead to resistance developing. Even in the 1930's others issued
similar warnings.
But nobody listened, antibiotics have been over prescribed and
underused, and now we are faced with MRSA, first identified in the
1960's, and now widespread.
And there are many other strains of "superbugs" that have emerged over
the decades as a result of the misuse of antibiotics.
But many of Andrew's ilk will dismiss any suggestion that this is
evolution in the bacteria.
> "Colanth" wrote in messagenews:0lcmf79v73m2ag8rl...@4ax.com...
That of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
In 1945 Alexander Fleming warned that the misuse of antibiotics would
lead to resistance developing. Even in the 1930's others issued
similar warnings.
But nobody listened, antibiotics have been over prescribed and
underused, and now we are faced with MRSA, first identified in the
1960's, and now widespread.
And there are many other strains of "superbugs" that have emerged over
the decades as a result of the misuse of antibiotics.
But many of Andrew's ilk will dismiss any suggestion that this is
evolution in the bacteria.
Paul David Wright
Dec 28, 2011, 8:40:33 PM12/28/11
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:1bmdnai-l5Czy2fT...@earthlink.com:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5-b88e-9eac549994b3@
32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
--
PDW
Check out my blog:
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42
news:1bmdnai-l5Czy2fT...@earthlink.com:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5-b88e-9eac549994b3@
32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
Stop lying.
> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
--
PDW
Check out my blog:
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42
Paul David Wright
Dec 28, 2011, 8:41:45 PM12/28/11
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:ONCdnT5upeKtvGbT...@earthlink.com:
> "Colanth" wrote in message
> news:qd8lf79a7dfqo7aru...@4ax.com...
news:ONCdnT5upeKtvGbT...@earthlink.com:
> "Colanth" wrote in message
> news:qd8lf79a7dfqo7aru...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>
>>
>>>Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>
>>>"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>>were all the same: No.
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>>
>> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
>> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
>> evolutionary biologist.
>
> Because that is what he was taught to believe.
>
> But does that have anything to do with the
>>>they would have done their work differently if they had
>>>thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
>>>were all the same: No.
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> Professor of CHEMISTRY.
>>
>> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -
>> Theodosius Dobzhansky, an actual (and prominent) geneticist and
>> evolutionary biologist.
>
> Because that is what he was taught to believe.
>
Paul David Wright
Dec 28, 2011, 8:42:34 PM12/28/11
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:ToKdnZleMvDx9mbT...@earthlink.com:
Why should he, since you've made it abundently clear that you won't
listen.
news:ToKdnZleMvDx9mbT...@earthlink.com:
listen.
Paul David Wright
Dec 28, 2011, 8:46:20 PM12/28/11
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:tYmdndz-h7s4uGbT...@earthlink.com:
> "bpuharic" wrote in message
> news:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>>>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>>>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>>>
>> and that's what we find
>
> We find the Cambrian explosion.
>
No.
>> creationism can make no such prediction
>
> See above.
>
>
>
STOP LYING, idiot.
news:tYmdndz-h7s4uGbT...@earthlink.com:
> "bpuharic" wrote in message
> news:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
>>>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
>>>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
>> the precambrian
>
> It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
> ....... which we DO find.
>
Like I said, you won't listen.
>> the precambrian
>
> It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
> ....... which we DO find.
>
>> and that's what we find
>
> We find the Cambrian explosion.
>
>> creationism can make no such prediction
>
> See above.
>
>
>
Paul David Wright
Dec 28, 2011, 9:52:09 PM12/28/11
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:rs6dnQYWEOQx-2bT...@earthlink.com:
>
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:64851bee-5d8a-40fb-8136-
d8ba35...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.
Unsupported assertion.
news:rs6dnQYWEOQx-2bT...@earthlink.com:
>
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:64851bee-5d8a-40fb-8136-
d8ba35...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.
Smiler
Dec 28, 2011, 11:10:23 PM12/28/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:24:04 -0500, Colanth wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:58:17 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>>
>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> The opinion of a chemist about evolution carries the same weight as
> the opinion of a plumber about evolution. Why do you creationists
> think that all scientists' opinions carry the same weight?
>
> Quote an evolutionary biologist who says that EVOLUTION doesn't
> happen. Or that no advances in pharmacology have anything to do with
> EVOLUTION.
>
> We don't use Darwin's theories these days any more than computer
> manufacturers use Leyden jars.
Damn! THAT'S why I can't find a micro-leyden-processor anywhere!
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:58:17 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>>
>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> The opinion of a chemist about evolution carries the same weight as
> the opinion of a plumber about evolution. Why do you creationists
> think that all scientists' opinions carry the same weight?
>
> Quote an evolutionary biologist who says that EVOLUTION doesn't
> happen. Or that no advances in pharmacology have anything to do with
> EVOLUTION.
>
> We don't use Darwin's theories these days any more than computer
> manufacturers use Leyden jars.
And I sooo wanted to build a static logic computer...
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 11:50:02 PM12/28/11
to
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:10:23 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
--
"The slaves who left Africa to go to America, because of their
steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped
change America" - George Bush
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:24:04 -0500, Colanth wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:58:17 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>>>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>>>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>>>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>>>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>>>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>>>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> The opinion of a chemist about evolution carries the same weight as
>> the opinion of a plumber about evolution. Why do you creationists
>> think that all scientists' opinions carry the same weight?
>>
>> Quote an evolutionary biologist who says that EVOLUTION doesn't
>> happen. Or that no advances in pharmacology have anything to do with
>> EVOLUTION.
>>
>> We don't use Darwin's theories these days any more than computer
>> manufacturers use Leyden jars.
>
>Damn! THAT'S why I can't find a micro-leyden-processor anywhere!
>And I sooo wanted to build a static logic computer...
Try the Ben Franklin store.
>On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:24:04 -0500, Colanth wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:58:17 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>>>would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>>>benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>>>to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>>>found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>>>guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>>>as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> The opinion of a chemist about evolution carries the same weight as
>> the opinion of a plumber about evolution. Why do you creationists
>> think that all scientists' opinions carry the same weight?
>>
>> Quote an evolutionary biologist who says that EVOLUTION doesn't
>> happen. Or that no advances in pharmacology have anything to do with
>> EVOLUTION.
>>
>> We don't use Darwin's theories these days any more than computer
>> manufacturers use Leyden jars.
>
>Damn! THAT'S why I can't find a micro-leyden-processor anywhere!
>And I sooo wanted to build a static logic computer...
--
"The slaves who left Africa to go to America, because of their
steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped
change America" - George Bush
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 11:53:34 PM12/28/11
to
--
Some people think they're thinking when all they're doing is
rearranging their preconceived notions.
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 11:57:21 PM12/28/11
to
>But nobody listened, antibiotics have been over prescribed and
>underused, and now we are faced with MRSA, first identified in the
>1960's, and now widespread.
>But many of Andrew's ilk will dismiss any suggestion that this is
>evolution in the bacteria.
more about cladistics than they do, that "bacteria" is at the same
level as "animal". So they're saying that if an insect egg hatched an
whale calf, "it's still an animal".
--
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have
such funny beliefs." - unknown
Colanth
Dec 28, 2011, 11:58:52 PM12/28/11
to
to be correct. If he's not his tiny faith might falter.
--
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too
important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant
superstition." - Isaac Asimov
SkyEyes
Dec 29, 2011, 2:52:55 AM12/29/11
to
On Dec 28, 7:20 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
explosion." Where do you get this silly shit?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
> >>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> >>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> >>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
> >>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> >>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> >> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> >> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> >> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> >> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> >> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> > let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
> > the precambrian
>
> It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
> ....... which we DO find.
Evolution does *not* predict that "there should be no Cambrian
> > the precambrian
>
> It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
> ....... which we DO find.
explosion." Where do you get this silly shit?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Loirbaj
Dec 29, 2011, 3:00:32 AM12/29/11
to
No modern physician has the slightest
use whatsoever of Evolution in their work.
use whatsoever of Evolution in their work.
Loirbaj
Dec 29, 2011, 3:04:32 AM12/29/11
to
No physician has the slightest
need for evolutionism, global warming,
astrology, other junk sciences.
need for evolutionism, global warming,
astrology, other junk sciences.
Devils Advocaat
Dec 29, 2011, 3:34:10 AM12/29/11
to
On Dec 29, 7:52 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 7:20 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
> > >>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> > >>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> > >> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> > >> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> > >> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> > > let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
> > > the precambrian
>
> > It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
> > ....... which we DO find.
>
> Evolution does *not* predict that "there should be no Cambrian
> explosion." Where do you get this silly shit?
Possibly the same place all excrement comes from?
> On Dec 28, 7:20 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
> > >>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> > >>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> > >> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> > >> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> > >> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> > > let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
> > > the precambrian
>
> > It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
> > ....... which we DO find.
>
> Evolution does *not* predict that "there should be no Cambrian
> explosion." Where do you get this silly shit?
Loirbaj
Dec 29, 2011, 4:18:29 AM12/29/11
to
No physician has the slightest
need for evolutionism, global warming,
astrology, other junk sciences.
Kook said,
need for evolutionism, global warming,
astrology, other junk sciences.
I have a theory about a ball on a string
which will somehow 'rotate just like the
moon around the earth'.
BroilJAB tapped dottle from pipe
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 29, 2011, 5:52:26 AM12/29/11
to
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:52:55 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:
>On Dec 28, 7:20 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
>> ....... which we DO find.
>
>Evolution does *not* predict that "there should be no Cambrian
>explosion." Where do you get this silly shit?
From the place shit comes from.
wrote:
>On Dec 28, 7:20 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
>> ....... which we DO find.
>
>Evolution does *not* predict that "there should be no Cambrian
>explosion." Where do you get this silly shit?
Devils Advocaat
Dec 29, 2011, 6:34:34 AM12/29/11
to
On Dec 28, 2:20 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
> >>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> >>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> >> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> >> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> >> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> > let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
> > the precambrian
>
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:v78mf7p5l2jge37h2...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
> >>behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> >>less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> >> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> >> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> >> the National Academy of Sciences.
>
> > let's see...evolution predicts there should be no rabbit fossils in
> > the precambrian
>
> It also predicts there should be no Cambrian explosion,
> ....... which we DO find.
>
> ....... which we DO find.
>
> > and that's what we find
>
> We find the Cambrian explosion.
>
>
> We find the Cambrian explosion.
>
> > creationism can make no such prediction
>
> See above.
>
>
> See above.
>
> > so evolution is correct. creationism is magic
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
> the complex, there should not be any Cambrian explosion filled
> with complex life forms.
>
> "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
> belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
> system, I can give no satisfactory answer....the difficulty of assigning
> any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
> beneath the Cambrian system is very great.....The case at present must
> remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
> against the views here entertained."
>
> -- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10
That is one of the most dishonest quote mines you have ever produced.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
> the complex, there should not be any Cambrian explosion filled
> with complex life forms.
>
> "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
> belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
> system, I can give no satisfactory answer....the difficulty of assigning
> any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
> beneath the Cambrian system is very great.....The case at present must
> remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
> against the views here entertained."
>
> -- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 29, 2011, 8:41:42 AM12/29/11
to
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:34:34 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
>> the complex, there should not be any Cambrian explosion filled
>> with complex life forms.
Complete and utter bullshit.
<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> According to Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to
>> the complex, there should not be any Cambrian explosion filled
>> with complex life forms.
>> "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
>> belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
>> system, I can give no satisfactory answer....the difficulty of assigning
>> any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
>> beneath the Cambrian system is very great.....The case at present must
>> remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
>> against the views here entertained."
>>
>> -- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10
>
>That is one of the most dishonest quote mines you have ever produced.
As usual, the bits the pathological liar leaves out have Darwin's
explanation.
This is another one dealt with by the Quote Mine Project, which was
created specifically to show where these pathological serial liars
were lying.
Quote #2.4
[Re: The fossil record is incorrectly presented as incontrovertible
evidence of the validity of evolutionary theory]
"The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the views here entertained." - The Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, Penguins Books, New York, Edition 6, p. 310.
Representative quote miners: The Fossil Record: Proof of Special
Creation and The Creation Explanation: The Primeval World -- Fossils,
Geology & Earth History: What Do the Fossils Say?
The more complete context is:
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced
that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum
the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E.
Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only
a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. Not very long ago
M. Barrande added another and lower stage, abounding with new and
peculiar species, beneath the then known Silurian system; and now,
still lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has found
in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and containing various
molluscs and annelids. The presence of phosphatic nodules and
bituminous matter, even in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably
indicates life at these periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in
the Laurentian formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are
three great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in Canada, in
the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W. Logan states that
their "united thickness may possibly far surpass that of all the
succeeding rocks, from the base of the palæozoic series to the present
time. We are thus carried back to a period so remote that the
appearance of the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some
be considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon belongs to
the most lowly organised of all classes of animals, but is highly
organised for its class; it existed in count less numbers, and, as Dr.
Dawson has remarked, certainly preyed on other minute organic beings,
which must have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote
in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before the Cambrian
period, and which are almost the same with those since used by Sir W.
Logan, have proved true. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any
good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable
that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or
that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action,
for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants
of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always
have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the
descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense
territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view,
that the older a formation is, the more invariably it has suffered
extreme denudation and metamorphism.
The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged
may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following
hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear
to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe
and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in
thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that
from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the
sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now
existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has
since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what
was the state of things in the intervals between the several
successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during
these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near
land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open
and unfathomable sea. - Origin of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872,
Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.
Darwin is concerned about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian, and
seeks to explain it in terms of the wearing away of the earlier
strata. He notes here (sixth edition, 1872) that he had said in 1859
(first edition) that fossils would be found in earlier strata, and
they eventually were. However, Darwin was probably mislead about the
Eozoon formations, as they are not currently considered a real fossil
but a metamorphic feature formed from the segregation of minerals in
marble through the influence of great heat and pressure.
Tectonic subduction, something that Darwin could not known of, has
destroyed some of the relevant material but mostly he was right. The
older the sediment, the greater the chance that it has either eroded
away or been metamorphosed to an extent that fossils are destroyed.
Even so, we have multicellular fossils now back to the Ediacaran
(circa 580 million years before the present) and single cell fossils
arguably back to 3.75 billion years. The valid argument no longer has
any purchase, and Darwin has been vindicated.
Citing it out of the specific context suggests Darwin thought there
were a lot of things he could not explain using evolution, and that he
knew it was false. This is extraordinarily bad quote mining.
- John Wilkins and John Harshman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Martin
Dec 29, 2011, 10:03:05 AM12/29/11
to
Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:24:04 -0500, Colanth wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:58:17 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>>> would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>>> benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>>> to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>>> found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>>> guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>>> as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> The opinion of a chemist about evolution carries the same weight as
>> the opinion of a plumber about evolution. Why do you creationists
>> think that all scientists' opinions carry the same weight?
>>
>> Quote an evolutionary biologist who says that EVOLUTION doesn't
>> happen. Or that no advances in pharmacology have anything to do with
>> EVOLUTION.
>>
>> We don't use Darwin's theories these days any more than computer
>> manufacturers use Leyden jars.
>
> Damn! THAT'S why I can't find a micro-leyden-processor anywhere!
> And I sooo wanted to build a static logic computer...
It's back to rubbing the cat with an amber rod for you, Mr S.
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:24:04 -0500, Colanth wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:58:17 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "I even queried biologists working in areas where one
>>> would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
>>> benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
>>> to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
>>> found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
>>> guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
>>> as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>>>
>>> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
>>> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
>>> the National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>> The opinion of a chemist about evolution carries the same weight as
>> the opinion of a plumber about evolution. Why do you creationists
>> think that all scientists' opinions carry the same weight?
>>
>> Quote an evolutionary biologist who says that EVOLUTION doesn't
>> happen. Or that no advances in pharmacology have anything to do with
>> EVOLUTION.
>>
>> We don't use Darwin's theories these days any more than computer
>> manufacturers use Leyden jars.
>
> Damn! THAT'S why I can't find a micro-leyden-processor anywhere!
> And I sooo wanted to build a static logic computer...
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
JohnN
Dec 29, 2011, 10:57:11 AM12/29/11
to
On Dec 27, 6:35 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
> past century: the discovery of the double helix; the
> characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of
> genomes; research on medications and drug reactions;
> improvements in food production and sanitation; the
> development of new surgeries; and others.
Theory of Intelligent Design. No one else seems to be able to produce
one.
JohnN
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> "I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
> they would have done their work differently if they had
> thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
> were all the same: No.
>
> I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the
> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> "I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
> they would have done their work differently if they had
> thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
> were all the same: No.
>
> past century: the discovery of the double helix; the
> characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of
> genomes; research on medications and drug reactions;
> improvements in food production and sanitation; the
> development of new surgeries; and others.
>
> I even queried biologists working in areas where one
> would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
> benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
> to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
> found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
> guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
> as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>
> I even queried biologists working in areas where one
> would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
> benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
> to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
> found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
> guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
> as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>
> When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
> behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
Please go through your library of Dr Skell's papers and find his
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
Theory of Intelligent Design. No one else seems to be able to produce
one.
JohnN
SkyEyes
Dec 29, 2011, 11:32:46 AM12/29/11
to
On Dec 29, 1:00 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> No modern physician has the slightest
> use whatsoever of Evolution in their work.
Except for the ones who give you vaccinations, of course.
> No modern physician has the slightest
> use whatsoever of Evolution in their work.
Uergil
Dec 29, 2011, 3:20:28 PM12/29/11
to
In article
<2b895d9e-51df-4569...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
<2b895d9e-51df-4569...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> I have a theory about a ball on a string
> which will somehow 'rotate just like the
> moon around the earth'.
Similarly, but not exactly
> I have a theory about a ball on a string
> which will somehow 'rotate just like the
> moon around the earth'.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Colanth
Dec 29, 2011, 5:34:11 PM12/29/11
to
Budikka666
Dec 29, 2011, 6:20:13 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 29, 3:18 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> No physician has the slightest
> need for evolutionism, global warming,
> astrology, other junk sciences.
What's in your cv that qualifies you to say that LiarBoi? You're the
> No physician has the slightest
> need for evolutionism, global warming,
> astrology, other junk sciences.
one who made a huge issue of cvs so you could hide from us behind it,
but we're all very curious about your qualifications that make you
think you're such an expert on such a wide range of subjects.
Why don't we discuss your cv right here in this thread?
Budikka
Smiler
Dec 29, 2011, 8:19:16 PM12/29/11
to
Smiler
Dec 29, 2011, 8:23:12 PM12/29/11
to
thunderstorm.
Loirbaj
Dec 29, 2011, 9:17:07 PM12/29/11
to
No modern physician has the slightest
use whatsoever of Evolution in their work.
SkyJeanBeastEyes nym said,
use whatsoever of Evolution in their work.
Except for the ones who give you
vaccinations, of course.
BroilJAB said,
vaccinations, of course.
Before embarking nearly 200 yrs ago,
Darwin was given smallpox vaccination
and which was SAFER than today given.
Again, NO need whatsoever in modern
medicine for voodoo, astrology, evolution.
Mike Painter
Dec 29, 2011, 11:32:54 PM12/29/11
to
add religious beliefs (Lots of SDA Docs around here)
Unless involved in research they act far more like engineers than
scientists.
And they follow a normal curve.
Coming back from a dive class I was in the back seat reading and a doc
and his friend were up front talking.
We were on a freeway and the talk turned more and more to running out of
gas. I finally asked if they were serious and got a snotty reply that
they were indeed serious.
I waited until just before the next off-ramp and pointed out the sings
that told where gas was available.
This same doc failed a dive quiz which had some basic high school
physics questions on it.
Message has been deleted
Don Martin
Dec 30, 2011, 11:32:22 AM12/30/11
to
Colanth
Dec 30, 2011, 1:45:19 PM12/30/11
to
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:32:54 -0800, Mike Painter
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Coming back from a dive class I was in the back seat reading and a doc
>and his friend were up front talking.
>We were on a freeway and the talk turned more and more to running out of
>gas. I finally asked if they were serious and got a snotty reply that
>they were indeed serious.
>I waited until just before the next off-ramp and pointed out the sings
>that told where gas was available.
>This same doc failed a dive quiz which had some basic high school
>physics questions on it.
Remember - half of all doctors graduated in the bottom 50% of their
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Coming back from a dive class I was in the back seat reading and a doc
>and his friend were up front talking.
>We were on a freeway and the talk turned more and more to running out of
>gas. I finally asked if they were serious and got a snotty reply that
>they were indeed serious.
>I waited until just before the next off-ramp and pointed out the sings
>that told where gas was available.
>This same doc failed a dive quiz which had some basic high school
>physics questions on it.
class. And 3/4 in the bottom 75%.
Colanth
Dec 30, 2011, 1:45:43 PM12/30/11
to
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:18:39 -0800 (PST), RedDog
<reddo...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 4:32 am, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 12/29/2011 3:20 PM, Budikka666 wrote:> On Dec 29, 3:18 am, Loirbaj<Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> >> No physician has the slightest
>> >> need for evolutionism, global warming,
>> >> astrology, other junk sciences.
>> > What's in your cv that qualifies you to say that LiarBoi? You're the
>> > one who made a huge issue of cvs so you could hide from us behind it,
>> > but we're all very curious about your qualifications that make you
>> > think you're such an expert on such a wide range of subjects.
>>
>> > Why don't we discuss your cv right here in this thread?
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> Most physicians indeed have no need for anything he claims. You can also
>> add religious beliefs (Lots of SDA Docs around here)
>>
>
>What is SDA?
I'm guessing Seventh Day Adventists.
<reddo...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 4:32 am, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 12/29/2011 3:20 PM, Budikka666 wrote:> On Dec 29, 3:18 am, Loirbaj<Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> >> No physician has the slightest
>> >> need for evolutionism, global warming,
>> >> astrology, other junk sciences.
>> > What's in your cv that qualifies you to say that LiarBoi? You're the
>> > one who made a huge issue of cvs so you could hide from us behind it,
>> > but we're all very curious about your qualifications that make you
>> > think you're such an expert on such a wide range of subjects.
>>
>> > Why don't we discuss your cv right here in this thread?
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> Most physicians indeed have no need for anything he claims. You can also
>> add religious beliefs (Lots of SDA Docs around here)
>>
>
I'm guessing Seventh Day Adventists.
Budikka666
Dec 31, 2011, 10:44:54 AM12/31/11
to
On Dec 29, 3:18 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> No physician has the slightest
> need for evolutionism, global warming,
> astrology, other junk sciences.
What's in your cv that qualifies you to say that LiarBoi? You're the
one who made a huge issue of cvs so you could hide from us behind it,
but we're all very curious about your qualifications that make you
think you're such an expert on such a wide range of subjects.
When atheists post material supportive of evolution or abiogenesis, we
> No physician has the slightest
> need for evolutionism, global warming,
> astrology, other junk sciences.
What's in your cv that qualifies you to say that LiarBoi? You're the
one who made a huge issue of cvs so you could hide from us behind it,
but we're all very curious about your qualifications that make you
think you're such an expert on such a wide range of subjects.
cite scientific research conducted by those who are eminently
qualified in those subjects. You never cite anyone or anything. So
clearly you think you alone have academic qualifications in *all* of
the topics you routinely spout.
We'd love to see what those are. Why don't we discuss your cv right
Budikka666
Dec 31, 2011, 10:53:29 AM12/31/11
to
completely derail you from the topic. Neither I nor any medical
practitioner has ever said that evolution is essential for all
medicine at all times. That's the creationist straw man. But the
*fact* remains that evolution informs medicine, and one major area of
this is antibiotic resistance.
Here's an actual practicing physician discussing this very topic in a
series of blogs:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/medicine_and_evolution_part_10_the_role.php
Here's a a professional science journal discussing this very topic:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
Just two of many many references to the value of understanding
evolution in the medical world.
Budikka
ken
Dec 31, 2011, 10:54:14 AM12/31/11
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message
news:50f77c8b-12e5-4401...@k28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
few weeks of "hom skoolin" where he learned to tie his shoes, dress, and
wipe himself
bpuharic
Dec 31, 2011, 5:59:16 PM12/31/11
to
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:64851bee-5d8a-40fb...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>> that it has.
>
>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
evolution is a fact
sorry
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>
>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>
>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>
>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>
>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>> that it has.
>
>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
evolution is a fact
sorry
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 31, 2011, 6:39:23 PM12/31/11
to
Andrew
Dec 31, 2011, 9:21:56 PM12/31/11
to
"bpuharic" wrote in message news:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> evolution is a fact
The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
"The professors of Darwinism have no limits except those
of their fantasies, and the credulity of those who listen to
them."
~ Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>
>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>
>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>> that it has.
>>
>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>
>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>
>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>> that it has.
>>
>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
> evolution is a fact
The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
"The professors of Darwinism have no limits except those
of their fantasies, and the credulity of those who listen to
them."
~ Andrew
Free Lunch
Dec 31, 2011, 9:46:16 PM12/31/11
to
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:21:56 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You keep preaching false doctrines and refusing to repent of the
nonsense you spew. Are you acting as a parody of a believer or are you
just an immoral worshipper of your own dishonesty and ignorance?
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
nonsense you spew. Are you acting as a parody of a believer or are you
just an immoral worshipper of your own dishonesty and ignorance?
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 31, 2011, 9:48:52 PM12/31/11
to
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:21:56 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
>"bpuharic" wrote in message news:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>>
>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>>> that it has.
>>>
>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>
>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
>> evolution is a fact
>
>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
>selective environmental pressure,
> but the Darwinist
Liar.
> deception
Liar
>of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
> "The professors of Darwinism
Liar.
> have no limits except those
> of their fantasies,
> and the credulity of those who listen to
> them."
> ~ Andrew
bpuharic
Dec 31, 2011, 9:52:00 PM12/31/11
to
>"bpuharic" wrote in message news:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>>
>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>>> that it has.
>>>
>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>
>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
>> evolution is a fact
>
>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
>selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
>of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
i'm a chemist
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>>
>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>>> that it has.
>>>
>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>
>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
>> evolution is a fact
>
>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
>selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
>of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
explain to me what are the 'genetic limits'.
creationists spout alot of bullshit but they've been wrong for 2000
years
Jeanne Douglas
Dec 31, 2011, 10:53:10 PM12/31/11
to
In article <AJidnfR14Km1XmLT...@earthlink.com>,
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
> selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
> of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
I truly don't know how you live in the world believing such nonsense.
> The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
> selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
> of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
Colanth
Dec 31, 2011, 11:36:34 PM12/31/11
to
>"bpuharic" wrote in message news:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>>
>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>>> that it has.
>>>
>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>
>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
>> evolution is a fact
>
>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits
Those limits being ONLY that fatal mutations don't propagate.
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>>
>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>>> that it has.
>>>
>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>
>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
>> evolution is a fact
>
>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits
>but the Darwinist deception of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
thousands of different cells.
Can we show evidence for your distortion of science? No. And no
one's interested in trying to.
--
"For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." - Adolf
Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922
Colanth
Dec 31, 2011, 11:37:50 PM12/31/11
to
two universes at the same time.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
SkyEyes
Jan 1, 2012, 1:31:28 AM1/1/12
to
On Dec 31, 7:21 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
mechanism work that "limits" one species from diversifying into
others? Please, take the time and explain the mechanism and its
workings *in detail*. Don't worry about being too technical; if I
have a problem, I know how to look shit up.
Put your explanation of these "genetic limits" right here:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Feel free to use more space if you need it.
Thanks *awfully*. When you get your Nobel prize, will you autograph
this post for me?
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>"Budikka666" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> >>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> >>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> >>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> >>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> >>> that it has.
>
> >>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> > although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
> ....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
> > evolution is a fact
>
> The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits
And what, pray tell, *are* those "genetic limits"? How does the
> >>"Budikka666" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> >>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> >>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> >>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> >>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> >>> that it has.
>
> >>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> > although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
> ....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
> > evolution is a fact
>
> The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits
mechanism work that "limits" one species from diversifying into
others? Please, take the time and explain the mechanism and its
workings *in detail*. Don't worry about being too technical; if I
have a problem, I know how to look shit up.
Put your explanation of these "genetic limits" right here:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Feel free to use more space if you need it.
Thanks *awfully*. When you get your Nobel prize, will you autograph
this post for me?
skye...@yahoo.com
Jan 1, 2012, 1:34:51 AM1/1/12
to
On Dec 31, 7:46 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:21:56 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
Andrew's afraid of dying and having to remain dead. Evolution calls
"salvation" into question. Therefore, Andrew (instead of rethinking
what the scripture means by "salvation") has to tell lies about
evolution.
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:21:56 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
"salvation" into question. Therefore, Andrew (instead of rethinking
what the scripture means by "salvation") has to tell lies about
evolution.
Devils Advocaat
Jan 1, 2012, 2:13:03 AM1/1/12
to
On Jan 1, 2:21 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
What evidence do you have that they exist?
Why do you refuse to go where the evidence leads?
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:dt4vf75kaisap1a27...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>"Budikka666" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> >>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> >>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> >>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> >>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> >>> that it has.
>
> >>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> > although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
> ....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
> > evolution is a fact
>
> The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
> selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
> of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
What are these so-called genetic limits?
> >>"Budikka666" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> >>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> >>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> >>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> >>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> >>> that it has.
>
> >>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> > although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
> ....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
> > evolution is a fact
>
> The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
> selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
> of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
What evidence do you have that they exist?
Why do you refuse to go where the evidence leads?
Don Martin
Jan 1, 2012, 10:34:29 AM1/1/12
to
"skye...@yahoo.com" <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 7:46 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:21:56 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
[snippage for bandwidth]
> On Dec 31, 7:46 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:21:56 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> You keep preaching false doctrines and refusing to repent of the
>> nonsense you spew. Are you acting as a parody of a believer or are you
>> just an immoral worshipper of your own dishonesty and ignorance?
>
> Andrew's afraid of dying and having to remain dead.
my own death is concerned, what other choices have I?
> Evolution calls "salvation" into question. Therefore, Andrew (instead of
> rethinking what the scripture means by "salvation") has to tell lies about
> evolution.
Andrew
Jan 1, 2012, 10:46:57 AM1/1/12
to
"bpuharic" wrote in message news:ehivf7tho1ukb4a58...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
This shows that you have been deceived by the Darwinists,
and with open mouthed credulity have swallowed all that
they have presented to you, without questioning.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"bpuharic" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>>>> that it has.
>>>>
>>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>>
>>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>>
>>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>>
>>> evolution is a fact
>>
>>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
>>selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
>>of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
>
> i'm a chemist
>
> explain to me what are the 'genetic limits'.
You don't know, do you?
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>>>> that it has.
>>>>
>>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>>
>>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>>
>>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>>
>>> evolution is a fact
>>
>>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
>>selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
>>of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
>
> i'm a chemist
>
> explain to me what are the 'genetic limits'.
This shows that you have been deceived by the Darwinists,
and with open mouthed credulity have swallowed all that
they have presented to you, without questioning.
Andrew
Jan 1, 2012, 10:47:21 AM1/1/12
to
"Colanth" wrote in message news:9jovf79tbk63qrqoe...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
on in your cherished deception.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"bpuharic" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>>>> that it has.
>>>>
>>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>>
>>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>>
>>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>>
>>> evolution is a fact
>>
>>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits
>
> Those limits being ONLY that fatal mutations don't propagate.
>
>>but the Darwinist deception of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
>
> No one claims it is. "The first life" may have been hundreds or
> thousands of different cells.
>
> Can we show evidence for your distortion of science? No. And no
> one's interested in trying to.
You just said that were not interested. Thus you continue
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>>>>> that it has.
>>>>
>>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>>
>>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>>
>>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>>
>>> evolution is a fact
>>
>>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits
>
> Those limits being ONLY that fatal mutations don't propagate.
>
>>but the Darwinist deception of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
>
> No one claims it is. "The first life" may have been hundreds or
> thousands of different cells.
>
> Can we show evidence for your distortion of science? No. And no
> one's interested in trying to.
on in your cherished deception.
Andrew
Jan 1, 2012, 10:48:42 AM1/1/12
to
"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:05bcb219-4957-489a...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
If you are having trouble, then perhaps a geneticist
may help you.
"The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
gene pool can not exceed the genetic information
that is contained therein."
~ Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "bpuharic" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>"Budikka666" wrote:
>> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>
>> >>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>> >>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>
>> >>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>> >>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>> >>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>> >>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>> >>> that it has.
>>
>> >>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>
>> > although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>>
>> ....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>>
>> > evolution is a fact
>>
>> The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits
>
> And what, pray tell, *are* those "genetic limits"? How does the
> mechanism work that "limits" one species from diversifying into
> others? Please, take the time and explain the mechanism and its
> workings *in detail*. Don't worry about being too technical; if I
> have a problem, I know how to look shit up.
If you know how to look it up, why do you ask me?
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>"Budikka666" wrote:
>> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >>>> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>>
>> >>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
>> >>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>>
>> >>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
>> >>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
>> >>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
>> >>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
>> >>> that it has.
>>
>> >>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>>
>> > although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>>
>> ....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>>
>> > evolution is a fact
>>
>> The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits
>
> And what, pray tell, *are* those "genetic limits"? How does the
> mechanism work that "limits" one species from diversifying into
> others? Please, take the time and explain the mechanism and its
> workings *in detail*. Don't worry about being too technical; if I
> have a problem, I know how to look shit up.
If you are having trouble, then perhaps a geneticist
may help you.
"The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
gene pool can not exceed the genetic information
that is contained therein."
~ Andrew
Andrew
Jan 1, 2012, 10:48:54 AM1/1/12
to
<skye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a22f9fb5-4567-4649...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew's afraid of dying and having to remain dead. Evolution
> calls "salvation" into question. Therefore, Andrew (instead of
> rethinking what the scripture means by "salvation") has to tell
> lies about evolution.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that
whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal
life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
the world, but that the world might be saved through him."
~ John 3:16,17 ~
> Andrew's afraid of dying and having to remain dead. Evolution
> calls "salvation" into question. Therefore, Andrew (instead of
> rethinking what the scripture means by "salvation") has to tell
> lies about evolution.
whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal
life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
the world, but that the world might be saved through him."
~ John 3:16,17 ~
Devils Advocaat
Jan 1, 2012, 10:56:58 AM1/1/12
to
On Jan 1, 3:46 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:ehivf7tho1ukb4a58...@4ax.com...
The onus is on you to provide evidence of their existence.
> "bpuharic" wrote in messagenews:ehivf7tho1ukb4a58...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>"bpuharic" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>>>> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> >>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> >>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> >>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> >>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> >>>>> that it has.
>
> >>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> >>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
> >>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
> >>> evolution is a fact
>
> >>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
> >>selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
> >>of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
>
> > i'm a chemist
>
> > explain to me what are the 'genetic limits'.
>
> You don't know, do you?
You made the claim about these so-called genetic limits.
> >>"bpuharic" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>>>> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >>>>>> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >>>>>> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> >>>>> Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> >>>>> of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> >>>>> issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> >>>>> medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> >>>>> that it has.
>
> >>>>Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> >>> although you're wrong, you have a prob lem
>
> >>....... but you just can't put it into words right now.
>
> >>> evolution is a fact
>
> >>The fact is that living things will adapt within genetic limits to
> >>selective environmental pressure, but the Darwinist deception
> >>of "universal common descent" is not a "fact".
>
> > i'm a chemist
>
> > explain to me what are the 'genetic limits'.
>
> You don't know, do you?
The onus is on you to provide evidence of their existence.
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 1, 2012, 11:01:23 AM1/1/12
to
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:34:29 GMT, Don Martin <drdon...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>"skye...@yahoo.com" <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 7:46 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:21:56 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
>>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>[snippage for bandwidth]
>
>>> You keep preaching false doctrines and refusing to repent of the
>>> nonsense you spew. Are you acting as a parody of a believer or are you
>>> just an immoral worshipper of your own dishonesty and ignorance?
>>
>> Andrew's afraid of dying and having to remain dead.
>
>Personally, I have no fear of Andrew's dying and remaining dead. So far as
>my own death is concerned, what other choices have I?
>
>> Evolution calls "salvation" into question. Therefore, Andrew (instead of
>> rethinking what the scripture means by "salvation") has to tell lies about
>> evolution.
>
>Be fair. He tells lies about salvation as well.
And about everything else.
wrote:
>"skye...@yahoo.com" <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 7:46 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:21:56 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
>>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>[snippage for bandwidth]
>
>>> You keep preaching false doctrines and refusing to repent of the
>>> nonsense you spew. Are you acting as a parody of a believer or are you
>>> just an immoral worshipper of your own dishonesty and ignorance?
>>
>> Andrew's afraid of dying and having to remain dead.
>
>Personally, I have no fear of Andrew's dying and remaining dead. So far as
>my own death is concerned, what other choices have I?
>
>> Evolution calls "salvation" into question. Therefore, Andrew (instead of
>> rethinking what the scripture means by "salvation") has to tell lies about
>> evolution.
>
>Be fair. He tells lies about salvation as well.
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 1, 2012, 11:06:19 AM1/1/12
to
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 07:46:57 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
In exactly the same way the teacher doesn't when he tests the class.
>This shows that you have been deceived
Liar.
> by the Darwinists,
Liar.
>and with open mouthed credulity
Project much, liar?
> have swallowed all that
Project much, liar?
>they have presented to you, without questioning.
>"The professors of Darwinism
Liar.
> have no limits except those
> of their fantasies,
Liar.
> and the credulity of those who listen to
> them."
Liar.
> ~ Andrew
is a pathological narcissist too stupid to understand that because his
is the only mind set he understands, he projects himself in his lies
about others.
wrote:
>This shows that you have been deceived
> by the Darwinists,
Liar.
>and with open mouthed credulity
> have swallowed all that
Project much, liar?
>they have presented to you, without questioning.
>"The professors of Darwinism
> have no limits except those
> of their fantasies,
> and the credulity of those who listen to
> them."
> ~ Andrew
is a pathological narcissist too stupid to understand that because his
is the only mind set he understands, he projects himself in his lies
about others.
Budikka666
Jan 1, 2012, 12:12:45 PM1/1/12
to
On Dec 28 2011, 12:58 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:64851bee-5d8a-40fb...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Why? because oyu ay so?
I quoted references proving you a liar. All you did was quote someone
who, like you, makes unsupported claims.
> > But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
> > you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
> > *curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
> > deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
> > children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
>
> > So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
>
> No, because your above is a straw man built upon prejudice and
> misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Jesus is real, and He does love
> you.
Thanks for once again admitting that you are a coward for Christ who,
despite evidently LYING that you have an omnipotent god on your side
RUNS AWAY *every* *single* *time* he's challenged to support his god.
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:64851bee-5d8a-40fb...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> > Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> > of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> > issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> > medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> > that it has.
>
> Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
> No.
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> >> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> >> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> > Nice try at changing the subject, and congratulations on duping a lot
> > of atheists into going along with you, but you don't fool me. The
> > issues is *not* your straw man of whether evolution is "THE factor" is
> > medicine, but whether it has contributed to medicine, and the truth is
> > that it has.
>
> Has the Darwinian evolutionary theory been a factor?
>
Why? because oyu ay so?
I quoted references proving you a liar. All you did was quote someone
who, like you, makes unsupported claims.
> > But the question you're avoiding, coward for Christ that
> > you are, is whether evolution or faith has contributed more to
> > *curing* the diseases you insist that your loving creator
> > deliberately, purposefully and evilly inflicted upon men women and
> > children - diseases which have killed literally millions of people.
>
> > So why don't you and I formally debate that right here in this thread?
>
> No, because your above is a straw man built upon prejudice and
> misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Jesus is real, and He does love
> you.
Thanks for once again admitting that you are a coward for Christ who,
despite evidently LYING that you have an omnipotent god on your side
RUNS AWAY *every* *single* *time* he's challenged to support his god.
Budikka
Devils Advocaat
Jan 1, 2012, 12:27:00 PM1/1/12
to
On Dec 28 2011, 7:15 pm, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Virtually NO aspect of modern medicine
> relies on evolution, any more so than their
> claims of 188 'vestigial organs' or that
> man is related to monkeys etc.
If you are so sure of your claims back them up with solid evidence.
> Virtually NO aspect of modern medicine
> relies on evolution, any more so than their
> claims of 188 'vestigial organs' or that
> man is related to monkeys etc.
If you are so sure of your claims back them up with solid evidence.
Colanth
Jan 1, 2012, 1:15:19 PM1/1/12
to
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 07:47:21 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
I said that I'm not interested in showing evidence for YOUR cherished
distortion. Your lack of reading comprehension ability is added to
the list of things you lack.
--
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough
to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater.
wrote:
distortion. Your lack of reading comprehension ability is added to
the list of things you lack.
--
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough
to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater.
Devils Advocaat
Jan 1, 2012, 1:28:49 PM1/1/12
to
On Dec 27 2011, 11:35 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> they would have done their work differently if they had
> thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
> were all the same: No.
>
> I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the
> past century: the discovery of the double helix; the
> characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of
> genomes; research on medications and drug reactions;
> improvements in food production and sanitation; the
> development of new surgeries; and others.
>
> I even queried biologists working in areas where one
> would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
> benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
> to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
> found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
> guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
> as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>
> When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
> behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
But what is he a professor of?
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b9fb7bd4-5242-4ed5...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/1936-6426/4/4/
>
> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> "I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if
>
> Has Darwinian evolutionary theory been THE factor
> to the development of the latest medical advances? No.
>
> they would have done their work differently if they had
> thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses
> were all the same: No.
>
> I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the
> past century: the discovery of the double helix; the
> characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of
> genomes; research on medications and drug reactions;
> improvements in food production and sanitation; the
> development of new surgeries; and others.
>
> I even queried biologists working in areas where one
> would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most
> benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance
> to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as else where, I
> found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible
> guidance, but was brought in, AFTER the breakthroughs,
> as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
>
> When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any
> behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much
> less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
>
> -- Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at
> Pennsylvania State University, and a member of
> the National Academy of Sciences.
But what is he a professor of?
Ralph
Jan 1, 2012, 1:44:14 PM1/1/12
to
see it today.
Ralph
Jan 1, 2012, 1:47:41 PM1/1/12
to
'believe' in Jesus? According to your holy word we were saved from our
sins at the moment of the death of Jesus. Period. No further
requirements necessary. Mmm...but those various requirements would
surely help the early church to grow. I recognized this fallacy when I
was 12 years old, how long will it take you???
Ralph
Jan 1, 2012, 1:48:54 PM1/1/12
to
free to use any 'creation scientist' you know to help you.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages