Intelligent Design is scientific fact

[Arlon]

Please see
The Town Voice > Science > page B1
The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
The Town Voice > Religion > page E1

http://www.thetownvoice.net

[Christopher A. Lee]

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

[Arlon]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:lt7rg71ek2lfc5gvd...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>>Please see
>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>
>>http://www.thetownvoice.net

> What a [f-word] moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

Flames? That's all you have?
I have a really cool website that looks like an old style newspaper.
And I have this
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-richmond/breakdown-of-the-atheist-dialectic
(Whatever that is.)

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:10:45 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:lt7rg71ek2lfc5gvd...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
>> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Please see

Why, imbecile?

>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>
>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net
>
>> What a [f-word] moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

If you can't cope with the language used to express emphasis and
contempt, then go fuck yourself.

> Flames? That's all you have?

Here's a clue, lying moron: anybody who posts anywhere that
intelligent design is a scientific fact, is a fucking moron.

Was that clear enough for you?

Because they are in serious denial about reality.

> I have a really cool website that looks like an old style newspaper.
> And I have this
>http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-richmond/breakdown-of-the-atheist-dialectic
>(Whatever that is.)

Given that you're a fucking moron, why should I bother to read it?

There is no "atheist dialectic".

All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't any kind of theist and cannot
be describes as though theistic presumptions even applied to them.

Was that clear enough even for a fucking moron like you?

[John Baker]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

Free clue, Sunshine. Any idiot who thinks ID is a scientific fact - or
a scientific *anything* - wouldn't *know* a scientific fact if it was
dipped in concentrated habanero pepper juice and rammed up his ass
with a cattle prod.

HTH



>

[Arlon]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:oo9rg7hu2rpiqm2l3...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:10:45 -0500, "Arlon"
> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:lt7rg71ek2lfc5gvd...@4ax.com...

>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
>>> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>>>>Please see

> Why, imbecile?

So you don't trip.

>>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>>
>>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net

> If you can't cope with the language used to express emphasis and

> contempt ... ...

Try expressing a thought with all that and see what I can do.

>> Flames? That's all you have?

> Here's a clue, lying moron: anybody who posts anywhere that

> intelligent design is a scientific fact, is a [f-word] moron.

>
> Was that clear enough for you?

You realize flames plus flames still equals just flames, in this
scenario anyway, no?
You need to do much better.

> Because they are in serious denial about reality.

Here is tip. Here I am trying to say that life is too complicated
to have been randomly assembled. All you have to counter are
flames and some "reality" you fail to describe at all.

Try this instead. Say that you are living proof that life is simple
because you have no more sense than a drop of green jelly. At least
then I would be challenged. I then have the difficult task of proving
you are a life form too complicated to have been randomly assembled.

See how that is so much more fun?

Here's my best answer. You can't be real. No one could be that
simple and remember to breathe. A euglena, no more than a drop of
green jelly, seen at 150 times magnification, has enough sense to seek
the lit end of its container of water. But here's the thing. It really
isn't
simple. It is a complex organism with several complex life systems.

And it is smarter than you apparently are.

There is the key though, "apparently."
Perhaps tomorrow your severe head wound will heal.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:10:45 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>

>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:lt7rg71ek2lfc5gvd...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
>> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Please see
>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>
>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net
>
>> What a [f-word] moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
>
> Flames? That's all you have?

It's all you deserve. You're an idiot.

> I have a really cool website that looks like an old style newspaper.
> And I have this
>http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-richmond/breakdown-of-the-atheist-dialectic
>(Whatever that is.)

IOW, you got nothin'.

[Arlon]

"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:qgcrg7dusgiguo150...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:10:45 -0500, "Arlon"
> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

> ... > ... > ... <saving bandwidth>

>> Flames? That's all you have?

> It's all you deserve. You're an idiot.

>> I have a really cool website that looks like an old style newspaper.
>> And I have this
>>http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-richmond/breakdown-of-the-atheist-dialectic
>>(Whatever that is.)

I repeat that.

> IOW, you got nothin'.

In your case all I really need it to type, "PKB."

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:58:27 -0500, "Arlon"

<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:oo9rg7hu2rpiqm2l3...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:10:45 -0500, "Arlon"
>> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:lt7rg71ek2lfc5gvd...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
>>>> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>Please see
>
>> Why, imbecile?
>
> So you don't trip.

Idiot.

>>>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net
>
>> If you can't cope with the language used to express emphasis and
>> contempt ... ...
>
> Try expressing a thought with all that and see what I can do.

It was the only response a fucking moron who posts "Intelligent Design
Is Scientific act" ANYWHERE, deserves.

The fact that he posts his fundamentalist Christian deluded fantasies
where he knows the regulars aren't even Christian makes it even worse.

If you don't like being treated as a fucking moron for being one, then
fuck off.

>>> Flames? That's all you have?
>
>> Here's a clue, lying moron: anybody who posts anywhere that

>> intelligent design is a scientific fact, is a fucking moron.

Dishonest replacement of "fucking" with "[f-word]" restored.

>> Was that clear enough for you?
>
> You realize flames plus flames still equals just flames, in this
>scenario anyway, no?

What "scenario", fucking moron who arrogantly imagines we have to
"debate" his mind-numbing stupidity?

> You need to do much better.

Why the fuck should we "debate" with a fucking moron like you who has
nothing whatever to say apart from mind-boggling stupidity?

>> Because they are in serious denial about reality.
>
> Here is tip. Here I am trying to say that life is too complicated
>to have been randomly assembled.

That's because you are a fucking moron with no grasp either of reality
or even basic logic.

And is so mind-bogglingly stupid he imagines atheists should take
fairy tales seriously, that even most Christians don't believe.

> All you have to counter are
>flames and some "reality" you fail to describe at all.

We're not here to educate the wilfully stupid and deliberately
ignorant.

> Try this instead. Say that you are living proof that life is simple
>because you have no more sense than a drop of green jelly. At least
>then I would be challenged. I then have the difficult task of proving
>you are a life form too complicated to have been randomly assembled.

What a fucking moron.

> See how that is so much more fun?

You think your in-our-face rudeness and stupidity is fun?

> Here's my best answer. You can't be real. No one could be that
>simple and remember to breathe. A euglena, no more than a drop of
>green jelly, seen at 150 times magnification, has enough sense to seek
>the lit end of its container of water. But here's the thing. It really
>isn't
>simple. It is a complex organism with several complex life systems.

What makes you morons so mind-numbingly, narcissistically stupid?

> And it is smarter than you apparently are.

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

> There is the key though, "apparently."
> Perhaps tomorrow your severe head wound will heal.

Didn't take you long to show your true colours, pathological
narcissist.

[Tronscend]

"Arlon" <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> skrev i melding
news:201201111511.UTC.jek8qa$p4a$1...@tioat.net...

A huge collection of meaningless strawmen and useless arguments.
Good luck with that.

T

[Ken]

Enough said!

[JohnN]

On Jan 11, 8:25 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-

In your own words, what is Intelligent Design?
What is the Theory of Intelligent Design?
What evidence exists for Intelligent Design?
Does Dover mean anything to you?

JohnN

[mr_antone]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

Yeah, malaria and the mosquito has killed hundreds of millions of
people over the ages.

All thanks to Intelligent Design.


--
mr_antone

[Dakota]

Creationists have been claiming that "life is too complicated to have
been randomly assembled" for a long time. The claim has two fatal flaws.
First, no one is claiming that life was "randomly assembled." The
creationists fail to understand that abiogenis is based on the
non-random chemical properties of matter. Second, no explanation of an
"intelligent designer" can account for the designer's origins.
Intelligent Design is nothing but religion in a new package.

[John Locke]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

"Intelligent Design" is religion. It has no scientific value and no
answers. ID has been debunked and rejected by every credible
university and research center on the planet. And apparently you
were living under a rock during the Dover trial:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

[huge]

And
By Arlon Staywell
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaahahaha.

[Arlon]

"John Locke" <john...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:77irg7pq55qu6th0k...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon" wrote:

>>Please see
>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>
>>http://www.thetownvoice.net

> "Intelligent Design" is religion. It has no scientific value and no
> answers.

It is rather a statement of the fact that you have no answers.

> ID has been debunked and rejected by every credible
> university and research center on the planet.

No, not at all. No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis
has been obtained. I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists" and
"evolutionists" and they always complain when I note they have
no theory of abiogenesis. They say they don't claim any. They
couldn't claim if they wanted, which is the proof of intelligent
design.

> And apparently you
> were living under a rock during the Dover trial:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Apparently you didn't follow the trail of links. Had you read
"Science Without Bias" here
http://www.thetownvoice.net/science/b01.htm
You would have seen this,
"The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was based on that public
opinion, not the current science. The principle arguments
in the case were made and heard by people who likely
hadn't seen a biology book in thirty years. When they
were in college the Miller-Urey experiment had revived
for a while the dying notion that random assembly of life
was possible. It is impossible with a modern college
biology textbook, showing the vast complexity of even
the simplest living things, to doubt the law of intelligent
design any more than the law of gravity."

Thanks for your concern nevertheless.

[MarkA]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, Arlon wrote:

Intelligent Design *is* scientific fact. We see it in the design of car,
aircraft, computers, etc. Such man-made objects also demonstrate
evolution: a design is tested, modified, tested again.

The difference between intelligent (human) design and biological evolution
is that nature has no design goal in mind. Survival is the measure of
success, and you can try any changes you like.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Jeanne Douglas]

On Jan 11, 10:13 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-

Address.invalid> wrote:

> No, not at all. No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis
> has been obtained. I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists" and
> "evolutionists" and they always complain when I note they have
> no theory of abiogenesis.

Since abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, why
should they?

JD

[Arlon]

"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:jekgvr$mnc$1...@dont-email.me...

> ... <saving bandwidth>

> Creationists have been claiming that "life is too complicated to have been
> randomly assembled" for a long time. The claim has two fatal flaws. First,
> no one is claiming that life was "randomly assembled." The creationists

> fail to understand that abiogenesis is based on the non-random chemical

> properties of matter. Second, no explanation of an "intelligent designer"
> can account for the designer's origins. Intelligent Design is nothing but
> religion in a new package.

I find it most remarkable that anyone would try to insist something
was created without an intelligent designer when they can't assemble it
with one.

Can you explain how that works?

[Don Martin]

Given the choice between Mr. Lee's flames and some pustule's "really cool"
website, I'll take the flames every time.

--
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/

[Arlon]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c0093fb-2049-46e2...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 11, 10:13 am, "Arlon" wrote:

>> No, not at all. No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis
>> has been obtained. I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists" and
>> "evolutionists" and they always complain when I note they have
>> no theory of abiogenesis.

> Since abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, why
> should they?
>
> JD

When I try to explain the debate is "Intelligent Design vs.
Animalculists" there are complaints it is a dishonest attempt
to disguise the real debate which they claim is "Evolution vs.
Creationism." But evolution serves no purpose in a debate
against creationism. If, as I noted many times in my debates
and on my websites, the real debate is whether the story
requires an intelligent designer then to argue against that
does require an abiotic origin of life, or a concession there
must have been an intelligent designer.

Belief that Darwin made any contribution to science is like
believing he invented the wheel. People have been breeding
plants and animals as long as they've been using wheels. So
no, Darwin made no important contribution to science.

People who believe their arguments in support of evolution
address any pressing public concern while believing there is
abiotic origin of life theory, probably learned by rote and don't
really understand what they do or say. The teachers who taught
them there is no abiotic origin of life theory might have
understood things better.

[Arlon]

"Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1941089934347998342.0046...@news20.forteinc.com...

< ... > <saving much bandwidth>

> Given the choice between Mr. Lee's flames and some pustule's "really cool"
> website, I'll take the flames every time.

Then it's true there's no accounting for tastes.

> 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/

Websites rule, Facebook drools.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:13:40 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>"John Locke" <john...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:77irg7pq55qu6th0k...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon" wrote:
>
>>>Please see
>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>
>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net
>
>> "Intelligent Design" is religion. It has no scientific value and no
>> answers.
>
> It is rather a statement of the fact that you have no answers.

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot who is in serious
denial about reality.

But does have to be so in-our-face with it?

We're not here to educate the deliberately stupid and wilfully
ignorant who live in their deluded fantasy world.

>> ID has been debunked and rejected by every credible
>> university and research center on the planet.
>
> No, not at all.

Liar.

> No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis
>has been obtained.

Liar.

> I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists" and

No such thing, liar.

>"evolutionists"

No such thing, liar.

> and they always complain when I note they have
>no theory of abiogenesis.

Because you're lying about something that is nothing to do with either
Darwin or evolution anyway.

> They say they don't claim any. They
>couldn't claim if they wanted, which is the proof of intelligent
>design.

Are you really, honestly this stupid?

Even if there weren't any explanations that still wouldn't prove that
a character out of your mythology that you know only Christians, Jews
and Muslims take seriously, did it.

What you are lying about is abiogenesis, part of biochemistry not
evolution.

And simple proto-cells were formed in the lab by the late Sidney Fox
40 years ago, and his experiments are repeated as university course
work by those studying the relevant fields.

Using completely natural processes.

More recent Nobel Prize winning research has been done at Harvard by
Jack Szostak's team.

But then you're so pig-ignorant you demand we prove something that is
nothing whatsoever to do with atheists and atheism.

>> And apparently you
>> were living under a rock during the Dover trial:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
>
> Apparently you didn't follow the trail of links. Had you read
>"Science Without Bias" here
>http://www.thetownvoice.net/science/b01.htm
>You would have seen this,

Science IS without bias, you fucking stupid moron.

>"The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was based on that public
>opinion, not the current science.

An outright lie.

> The principle arguments
> in the case were made and heard by people who likely
>hadn't seen a biology book in thirty years.

Only on the creationist side.

One of the expert witnesses on the plaintiff's side was a
bacteriologist who happened to be a devout Catholic, and who
demolished Behe's Irreducible complexity bullshit.

In fact they deliberately chose expert witnesses working in the
relevant fields who happened to be Christian to forestall the usual
creationist lie about evolution being anything to so with atheism.

Even the Judge was a conservative Republican and a Christian appointed
by George W. Bush.

Behe was also asked to show that ID was actually science, which he was
only able to do by redefining science so broadly that he had to admit
that by his definition astrology was also science.

The fact that the ID side perjured themselves by changing their story
over the acquisition of what purported to be textbooks didn't help
their case either.

It was claimed in depositions that they were anonymous donations, but
the creationists on the school board who had ordered teachers to lie
that evolution was a disputed theory and that the class could read
about the alternative in the school library were the very people who
had supplied sixty copies.

The Liars For God had elected a no jury trial because they expected
the judge to favour them, but this meant he had read the depositions
and knew they were either lying under cross-examination or in the
depositions.

And he himself extracted confessions that the school board themselves
had organised the "textbooks".

It was also claimed that ID was different from creation, but various
drafts of the textbook showed that it was a creationist book with a
few minor changes.

With one badly done cut'n'paste alteration in one of the drafts,
containing the unusual term "cdesign proponetists".

Showing its pedigree.

After the verdict, the judge was on the receiving end of all sorts of
false accusations about why he "really" gave the verdict he did, and
even death threats,

None of which he ever expected just for being honest.

> When they
>were in college the Miller-Urey experiment had revived
>for a while the dying notion that random assembly of life
>was possible.

Liar.

The original Miller/Urey experiment had yielded amino acids and
peptide chains (short chains of amino acids). At what length does a
peptide chain become a protein (a long chain of amino acids)?

And when sealed vials containing the results were subject to more
precise testing using modern equipment, that were shown to contain
small quantities of many more of the building blocks.

The experiment is repeated regularly using slightly different
conditions, yielding different mixtures of the building blocks.

But 40 years ago Sidney Fox took it further, heating amino acids (a
perfectly natural process) and immersing the residue in salt water
(another perfectly natural process, ever heard of the sea?).

The result was simple proto-cells which self-organised, took in
nutrients and replicated.

> It is impossible with a modern college
>biology textbook,

Those are in the textbooks, imbecile.

> showing the vast complexity of even
>the simplest living things, to doubt the law of intelligent
>design any more than the law of gravity."

What "law of intelligent design" are you lying about, pathological
liar who makes up transparently stupid bullshit?

>Thanks for your concern nevertheless.

What "concern", pig-ignorant, in-our-face narcissistic moron?

Why can't you mindless retards at least try to understand what you are
attacking?

[ilbe...@gmail.com]

On Jan 11, 7:25 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-

I.D. is all around us especially DNA with its incredible complex
informational messaging system giving specific instructions for cell
and body part manufacture. DNA is the final nail in the atheists
coffin. It is now absolutely rediculous to believe in atheism for a
worldview (and for a lifestyle I might add. i.e. the STD epidemic
which IS taking thousands of lives per year thru sexual hedonism not
too mention 40,000,000 developing human beings while still in the womb
since 1973) . Far better to give ones life to God whilst theres time.

[Ken]

On Jan 11, 11:38 am, "IlBenButtfucked @gmail.com" <Dimwit Davie Bio>
wrote this shit:

> I.D. is all around us

That's for sure because I.D.= Idiot Dickheads

[Arlon]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:uelrg79a3d5j1j2ra...@4ax.com...

> But does it have to be so in-our-face with it?

Where you put your face is your business, I suppose.

> We're not here to educate the deliberately stupid and wilfully
> ignorant who live in their deluded fantasy world.

What are you here for? What is the meaning of life?

> Liar. ... > Liar ... > No such thing, liar.
> No such thing, liar.

By now it must be long past the time you've realized I'm
impervious to internet flaming and name calling. So why do
you go on so?

> Even if there weren't any explanations that still wouldn't prove that
> a character out of your mythology that you know only Christians, Jews
> and Muslims take seriously, did it.

No it wouldn't. It would prove some intelligent designer did though.

> And simple proto-cells were formed in the lab by the late Sidney Fox
> 40 years ago, and his experiments are repeated as university course
> work by those studying the relevant fields.

I believe my website has a comprehensive history of what has been
created in labs.

> More recent Nobel Prize winning research has been done at Harvard by
> Jack Szostak's team.

Do you provide no details because none of them are worth providing?
It raises the question where is that website? And do you have one?

> ... > ...

>
> The original Miller/Urey experiment had yielded amino acids and
> peptide chains (short chains of amino acids). At what length does a
> peptide chain become a protein (a long chain of amino acids)?
>
> And when sealed vials containing the results were subject to more
> precise testing using modern equipment, that were shown to contain
> small quantities of many more of the building blocks.
>
> The experiment is repeated regularly using slightly different
> conditions, yielding different mixtures of the building blocks.
>
> But 40 years ago Sidney Fox took it further, heating amino acids (a
> perfectly natural process) and immersing the residue in salt water
> (another perfectly natural process, ever heard of the sea?).
>
> The result was simple proto-cells which self-organised, took in
> nutrients and replicated.

I am thoroughly familiar with the urban legends surrounding
Kitzmiller v. Dover and the research to find an abiotic theory of
the origin of life. It doesn't matter. There is no sound, rational
abiotic theory of the origin of life, which fact trumps all your
whining.

[DanielSan]

On 1/11/2012 12:12 PM, Arlon wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee"<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:uelrg79a3d5j1j2ra...@4ax.com...
>

>> Liar. ...> Liar ...> No such thing, liar.
>> No such thing, liar.
>
> By now it must be long past the time you've realized I'm
> impervious to internet flaming and name calling. So why do
> you go on so?

Eventually, you might realize that you're actually lying and be adult
enough about it to stop.





But, somehow, I doubt it.

[Mel Franks]

"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c97bab28-abb2-4879...@q17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 11, 7:25 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> Please see
> The Town Voice > Science > page B1
> The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
> The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
> The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>
> http://www.thetownvoice.net

> I.D. is all around us especially DNA with its incredible complex
> informational messaging system giving specific instructions for cell
> and body part manufacture.

Just curious, how is the existence of DNA an argument for I.D.?

[John Baker]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:12:17 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:uelrg79a3d5j1j2ra...@4ax.com...
>
>> But does it have to be so in-our-face with it?
>
> Where you put your face is your business, I suppose.
>
>> We're not here to educate the deliberately stupid and wilfully
>> ignorant who live in their deluded fantasy world.
>
> What are you here for? What is the meaning of life?
>
>> Liar. ... > Liar ... > No such thing, liar.
>> No such thing, liar.
>
> By now it must be long past the time you've realized I'm
>impervious to internet flaming and name calling. So why do
>you go on so?

You're obviously impervious to facts and reason too, so why should we
waste our time trying to educate you? A brick is more worthy of our
attention.

>
>> Even if there weren't any explanations that still wouldn't prove that
>> a character out of your mythology that you know only Christians, Jews
>> and Muslims take seriously, did it.
>
> No it wouldn't. It would prove some intelligent designer did though.
>
>> And simple proto-cells were formed in the lab by the late Sidney Fox
>> 40 years ago, and his experiments are repeated as university course
>> work by those studying the relevant fields.
>
> I believe my website has a comprehensive history of what has been
>created in labs.

What you believe is of no consequence.

<snipped for brevity>

>
> I am thoroughly familiar with the urban legends surrounding
>Kitzmiller v. Dover and the research to find an abiotic theory of
>the origin of life.

You'll forgive me, I trust, if I call 'bullshit' on that....

>It doesn't matter. There is no sound, rational
>abiotic theory of the origin of life, which fact trumps all your
>whining.

And your scientific qualifications for making this statement would be?

What's that? You have none? Why is no one surprised?

Ignorance and arrogance is a very unattractive combination, Skippy.
You really should try to remedy one or the other.





>

[Arlon]

"Ken" <flak...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6da89481-e69b-4a4b...@y12g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 11, 11:38 am, "IlBen[B][f] @gmail.com" <Dimwit Davie Bio>
> wrote this [s#!%]:

>> I.D. is all around us

> That's for sure because I.D.= Idiot Dickheads

The thing I like about computers is that when you
solve a problem you can write the solution into a
program and the next time the problem occurs you
can just push the button that runs the program.

Sometimes people take "free" speech too far. Then
there's this.
http://www.thetownvoice.net/politics/d10.htm

And also very interesting in that regard is this.
http://www.thetownvoice.net/oped.htm

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:09:49 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4c0093fb-2049-46e2...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Jan 11, 10:13 am, "Arlon" wrote:
>
>>> No, not at all. No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis
>>> has been obtained. I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists" and
>>> "evolutionists" and they always complain when I note they have
>>> no theory of abiogenesis.
>
>> Since abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, why
>> should they?
>>
>> JD
>
> When I try to explain the debate is "Intelligent Design vs.
>Animalculists"

No such thing, liar.

> there are complaints it is a dishonest attempt
>to disguise the real debate

There is no debate, liar. Just pig-ignorant, mentally ill people in
denial about reality who can't keep their deluded fantasies to
themselves, ie creationists.

> which they claim is "Evolution vs.
>Creationism."

There is no "Evolution vs creation" outside the deluded fantasies of
creationists.

> But evolution serves no purpose in a debate
>against creationism.

There is no debate. It was settled 160 years ago and creationists
lost.

> If, as I noted many times in my debates

What "debates", liar?

Pushing your bullshit where it is irrelevant, isn't debate.

>and on my websites, the real debate is whether the story
>requires an intelligent designer

Again, no debate. Just deluded religious fanatics in serious denial
about the real world, pushing their creation myths as fact expecting
everybody else to take them seriously.

But it takes a fucking moron to expect people in the one place he
knows they aren't Christian, to take Christianity's creation myths
seriously.

Especially when most Christians don't.

> then to argue against that
>does require an abiotic origin of life, or a concession there
>must have been an intelligent designer.

Idiot.

> Belief that Darwin made any contribution to science is like
>believing he invented the wheel.

Again the fucking moron demonstrates what a pathological liar he is.

Evolution was already known about a few generations before Darwin, and
in fact goes back at least to the ancient Greeks (Animaxander).

Leonardo da Vinci was the first person I know about in comparatively
modern times to mention it when he saw fossils of marine life in the
ground being excavated for a canal and realised what they were, and
that they were similar but different to modern specimens.

Darwin's wasn't even the first explanation for how it happened, just
the first scientifically derived one, the result of painstaking
research.

180 years of subsequent research have confirmed his explanation, as
well as providing the mechanisms for heredity and random genetic
mutation that he predicted but did not know.

His research and explanation are the cornerstone of the biological
sciences, and if he were wrong they would be completely different.

And there would be none of the subsequent discoveries like DNA which
provided the mechanisms for heredity and mutation.

And none of the spinoff sciences and technologies resulting from our
understanding of the mechanisms that cause Darwinian evolution.

No DNA, hence no genetics, no biotech and therefore modern medicine,
agriculture and forensic identification would be completely different,
we wouldn't understand how cancers are caused, and we wouldn't even
have discovered a second way evolution happens (genetic drift).

Over and above his foundational work in biology, he also made major
contributions to the scientific method itself by how his research was
carried out, his use of predictions that could be confirmed etc.

> People have been breeding
>plants and animals as long as they've been using wheels. So

So?

>no, Darwin made no important contribution to science.

Proper antibiotic treatment directly depends on natural selection.

Or haven't you heard of antibiotic-resistant strains?

> People who believe their arguments in support of evolution
>address any pressing public concern while believing there is
>abiotic origin of life theory, probably learned by rote and don't
>really understand what they do or say.

Project much, fucking moronic liar?

> The teachers who taught
>them there is no abiotic origin of life theory might have
>understood things better.

Don't be so fucking stupid.

*Y*O*U yourself confirm evolution every time you use the results of
technologies derived from it. Like food products from the supermarket,
like much modern medicine.

Because without it these wouldn't have happened.

In exactly the same way *Y*O*U* confirm atomic theory when to switch
the light on because if atomic theory were wrong there would be no
nuclear power stations.

Jesus H. (for Haploid, look it up) Christ on a popsicle stick, you're
stupid.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:13:40 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>

>"John Locke" <john...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:77irg7pq55qu6th0k...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon" wrote:
>
>>>Please see
>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>
>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net
>
>> "Intelligent Design" is religion. It has no scientific value and no
>> answers.
>
> It is rather a statement of the fact that you have no answers.
>
>> ID has been debunked and rejected by every credible
>> university and research center on the planet.
>
> No, not at all. No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis
>has been obtained. I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists" and
>"evolutionists" and they always complain when I note they have
>no theory of abiogenesis.

I note as well that you have no *theory* of Intelligent Design. Only
arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.

Who designed your designer? And who designed *that* designer - and so
on. Until you can answer those questions, you're not proving a damned
thing, Sunshine. You're only blowing smoke up your own ass.

>They say they don't claim any.

Perhaps you should try that tactic on a few actual working biologists,
Sparky. Having your arse handed to you a few times might teach you a
lesson - and some manners.

>They
>couldn't claim if they wanted, which is the proof of intelligent
>design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeezus H. motherfucking Christ on a crutch, you're fucking stupid.

>
>> And apparently you
>> were living under a rock during the Dover trial:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
>
> Apparently you didn't follow the trail of links. Had you read
>"Science Without Bias" here
>http://www.thetownvoice.net/science/b01.htm
>You would have seen this,
>"The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was based on that public
>opinion, not the current science. The principle arguments
> in the case were made and heard by people who likely
>hadn't seen a biology book in thirty years. When they
>were in college the Miller-Urey experiment had revived
>for a while the dying notion that random assembly of life
>was possible. It is impossible with a modern college
>biology textbook, showing the vast complexity of even
>the simplest living things, to doubt the law of intelligent
>design any more than the law of gravity."

It's impossible to doubt your ignorance and shameless dishonesty,
that's for sure.

You won't find one biologist in a thousand who buys into ID, Sparky.
That's a fact. And I dare say they know just a little more than you.

>
>Thanks for your concern nevertheless.

Sure, Sport. Thanks for the laugh.



>
>
>
>

[Devils Advocaat]

On Jan 11, 7:38 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 7:25 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
>
> Address.invalid> wrote:
> > Please see
> > The Town Voice > Science > page B1
> > The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
> > The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
> > The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>
> >http://www.thetownvoice.net
>
> I.D.  is all around us especially DNA with its incredible complex
> informational messaging system giving specific instructions for cell
> and body part manufacture.   DNA is the final nail in the atheists
> coffin.

DNA as a medium for information is actually simpler than the English
language.

DNA has only four letters, and only sixty four words.

English has twenty six letters, and at least 750,000 words.

>  It is now absolutely rediculous to believe in atheism for a
> worldview  (and for a lifestyle I might add.   i.e.  the STD epidemic
> which IS taking thousands of lives per year thru sexual hedonism not
> too mention 40,000,000 developing human beings while still in the womb
> since 1973) .

Then why are the majority of STD patients, and women in abortion
clinics recorded as being theists?

And why do you continue to put hedonism and atheism together?

Not all hedonists are atheists.

In fact I would go as far as to suggest the majority of hedonists are
theists?

Why?

Because they can go to confession, or privately ask god for his
forgiveness.

Then go off and do it all over again.

[Arlon]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:a0rrg7hfl7v6im60k...@4ax.com...
ranted and raved and ranted and raved only without a single thing to say

Actually you're making a point for me. Some people think my
website is useless because "everyone knows" those things
already. I rather suspect many people, including conservatives
and God fearing people, haven't really studied them in detail.
They are rather guilty of a "sound bite" mentality, much like yours.
They believe all sorts of things they really can't defend except by
pointing to their large numbers, or like you, just raving lunatics.

I suspect Romney will be nominated eventually. It's way too
early to call it. The states moved up their primaries because
a few states with earlier primaries were making the decision
without other states having a chance to vote. The press calling
Romney unstoppable after 3 states is a slap in the face to the
efforts of the other states. Party insiders have never liked long
drawn out primaries because it pits the party against itself. The
public in all 50 states would nevertheless like an opportunity to
participate. I suspect that in the long run though Romney will
get the nomination.

I don't believe most Republicans were ready to try to defeat
Obama. It has become a sort of tradition to let a president
have two terms. Hillary didn't run till after Bush's second.
There hasn't been a one term president in 30 years. But
Obama has been so remarkably bad a president it has become
necessary to run against him full steam. The shuffling around
of front runners every week indicates some Republicans are
searching for that person who can beat Obama. Romney
who doesn't really stand for anything isn't that person and
many Republicans know it, but they were caught without
a real choice.

So no true conservative gets the nod and Obama hangs on
another four years. What happens to my website? People
need it more than ever so that maybe by 2016 they can
put forth an actually good choice.

[JTEM]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

> "Arlon" wrote:
> >Please see
> >The Town Voice > Science > page B1
> >The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
> >The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
> >The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>
> >http://www.thetownvoice.net
>

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

Yes, but do you have any idea why? If you do, you fail to
so much as imply so....

Science __Is__ filled with opinion, but in the form of
INTERPRETATION.

There is more than one way to interpret data. Usually,
data supports more than one interpretation. This leads
to disputes, yes, and even some pretty nasty ones at
that. But the point is that it's all firmly rooted in science,
in facts -- in the data.

But he is right in that emotions & tradition ("Everybody
knows!") frequently weighs in on interpretation -- opinion.
One example that has been played out here, on usenet,
is the question of interbreeding between Neanderthals
and so-called "Moderns". The "Popular" view of the data
was so skewered by tradition -- what everyone heard for
years -- that virtually nobody would see the obvious.

And even better example is "Biblical Archaeology."

In the case of "Biblical Archaeology" the conclusions are
front-loaded ("Circular"). Opinions (in this case "Beliefs")
color everything. No, not "Color," they are the very basis
of interpretation.

[Paul David Wright]

"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c97bab28-abb2-4879...@q17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

>
> On Jan 11, 7:25=A0am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-

> Address.invalid> wrote:
>> Please see
>> The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>> The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>> The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>> The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>
>> http://www.thetownvoice.net
>
> I.D. is all around us

And another dishonest theist is heard from.

--
PDW

Check out my blog:
The first is a preview of my superhero comic book.
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/


And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42

[Loirbaj]

Dr.ARLON published,

Please see
The Town Voice > Science > page B1
The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
The Town Voice > Religion > page E1

http://www.thetownvoice.net

John Virgil Baker said,
NOT fair, we simply believe in Evolutionism.

You seem to have struck a nerve among
the deviants here, Arlon. There is immense
proof of Intelligent Design and NONE for
evolution.

Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
G.K. Chesterton

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 11, 6:25 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-

Address.invalid> wrote:
> Please see
> The Town Voice > Science > page B1
> The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
> The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
> The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>
> http://www.thetownvoice.net

Oh, please. Intelligent Design is a mask for creationism, pure and
simple. There is no scientific work being done in the area of
"intelligent design." There are no school lesson plans that address
"intelligent design." Intelligent design makes no predictions, and is
not "useful" in a scientific sense.''

Kindly take this crap over to talk.origins, where they will cordially
eat you for lunch.

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

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 11, 8:58 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:oo9rg7hu2rpiqm2l3...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:10:45 -0500, "Arlon"
> > <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
> >>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >>news:lt7rg71ek2lfc5gvd...@4ax.com...

> >>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"

> >>> <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>Please see
> > Why, imbecile?
>
>      So you don't trip.

>
> >>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
> >>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
> >>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
> >>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>
> >>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net

> > If you can't cope with the language used to express emphasis and
> > contempt  ...  ...
>
>      Try expressing a thought with all that and see what I can do.

>
> >>     Flames?  That's all you have?

> > Here's a clue, lying moron: anybody who posts anywhere that
> > intelligent design is a scientific fact, is a [f-word] moron.
>
> > Was that clear enough for you?
>
>      You realize flames plus flames still equals just flames, in this
> scenario anyway, no?
>      You need to do much better.
>
> > Because they are in serious denial about reality.
>
>      Here is tip.  Here I am trying to say that life is too complicated
> to have been randomly assembled.

That's the Argument from Incredulity. Just because *you* can't
comprehend a process doesn't mean it can't have happened.

Besides: if life *was* designed, the "Designer" is an incompetent
moron. Diversity presents kludges and awkward, complicated work-
arounds.

Good design, on the other hand, is simple and elegant, two words you
can't use to describe life on earth.

>  All you have to counter are
> flames and some "reality" you fail to describe at all.

I have quite a bit more.
>
>      Try this instead.  Say that you are living proof that life is simple
> because you have no more sense than a drop of green jelly.

Say what?

>  At least
> then I would be challenged.  I then have the difficult task of proving
> you are a life form too complicated to have been randomly assembled.

But it has been demonstrated in the lab, and by mathematical
processes, and by computer programs, that extremely complex structures
and processes arise from simple processes repeated again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again, with different variables - such as what
*random mutation* would provide.
>
>      See how that is so much more fun?

What's "more fun" is *reality.*
>
>      Here's my best answer.  You can't be real.  No one could be that
> simple and remember to breathe.

And here I was thinking the same thing about *you*.

 A euglena, no more than a drop of
> green jelly, seen at 150 times magnification, has enough sense to seek
> the lit end of its container of water.  But here's the thing.  It really
> isn't
> simple.  It is a complex organism with several complex life systems.

All of which arose naturally.
>
>      And it is smarter than you apparently are.
>
>      There is the key though, "apparently."
>      Perhaps tomorrow your severe head wound will heal.

Wow. You really drank the kool-aid, didn't you?

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 11, 8:56 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
>
> <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
> >Please see

> >The Town Voice > Science > page B1
> >The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
> >The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
> >The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>
> >http://www.thetownvoice.net
>

> Free clue, Sunshine. Any idiot who thinks ID is a scientific fact - or
> a scientific *anything* - wouldn't *know* a scientific fact if it was
> dipped in concentrated habanero pepper juice and rammed up his ass
> with a cattle prod.

That reminds me <scribbling grocery list>: I want to make a habanero-
lime cheesecake. Thanks, John.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:37:08 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Jan 11, 8:56�am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
>>
>> <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>> >Please see
>> >The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>> >The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>> >The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>> >The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>
>> >http://www.thetownvoice.net
>>
>> Free clue, Sunshine. Any idiot who thinks ID is a scientific fact - or
>> a scientific *anything* - wouldn't *know* a scientific fact if it was
>> dipped in concentrated habanero pepper juice and rammed up his ass
>> with a cattle prod.
>
>That reminds me <scribbling grocery list>: I want to make a habanero-
>lime cheesecake. Thanks, John.

Hmmm. Sounds interesting.

[Doc Smartass]

"Arlon" <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote in
news:201201111326.UTC.jek2m3$n83$1...@tioat.net:

> Subject: Intelligent Design is scientific fact

Only if you spell "scientific fact" as "f-u-c-k-i-n-g b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t"

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

There are several tax-free, government-free places in this world...
They're called "failed states."

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 11, 11:23 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jekgvr$mnc$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > ... <saving bandwidth>
> > Creationists have been claiming that "life is too complicated to have been
> > randomly assembled" for a long time. The claim has two fatal flaws. First,
> > no one is claiming that life was "randomly assembled." The creationists
> > fail to understand that abiogenesis is based on the non-random chemical
> > properties of matter. Second, no explanation of an "intelligent designer"
> > can account for the designer's origins. Intelligent Design is nothing but
> > religion in a new package.
>
>      I find it most remarkable that anyone would try to insist something
> was created without an intelligent designer when they can't assemble it
> with one.
>
>      Can you explain how that works?

Certainly. Mathematics [see "Mandelbrot process"], work in the lab,
plus computer programs have demonstrated that highly complex processes
can arise from *simple* processes repeated time after time after time,
but with slightly different variables - such as those provided by
random mutation.

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 11, 11:13 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> "John Locke" <johnny...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:77irg7pq55qu6th0k...@4ax.com...

>
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"  wrote:
> >>Please see
> >>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
> >>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
> >>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
> >>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>
> >>http://www.thetownvoice.net

> > "Intelligent Design" is religion. It has no scientific value and no
> > answers.
>
>      It is rather a statement of the fact that you have no answers.

Oh, he *does*. And if he doesn't, *I* do. And if *I* don't, I know a
crapload of people with real science backgrounds who do.

>
> > ID has been debunked and rejected by every credible
> > university and research center on the planet.
>
>      No, not at all.

Absolutely. Intelligent Design isn't taught *anywhere* except in
christian fundy (and may some Islamist) universities. You won't find
it on any campus with a serious science program.

>  No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis
> has been obtained.

*Yet*. But then, they've only been working on it for about 50 years,
and only had the best tool - computers - for about 25. Already
they've found that amino acid precusors self-assemble, as do primitive
cell membranes, and that the chemical components for life are spread
all over our solar system, and probably all over the universe.

Give us another 25 years. It'll be a different story.

>  I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists"

Well, that's your problem, Sparky. "Darwinist" is *so* 19th-Century.

Want to debate *me*? Just a bit of background: I grew up an Old-
Earth Creationist in a fundamentalist (big-C Conservative) Baptist
church. Then I got a *really* good education.

So, crossed swords at midnight? Are you up for it?

> and "evolutionists"

The word is "biologist"

> and they always complain when I note they have
> no theory of abiogenesis.

Indeed. But there are several hypothesis about abiogenesis.

You *do* know the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis," don't
you?

>  They say they don't claim any.  They

> couldn't claim if they wanted, which is the proof of intelligent
> design.

Er, no, it *doesn't.* What you're claiming is "we don't yet have a
naturalistic explanation, therefore, MAGIC!" It doesn't work that
way.

>
> > And apparently you
> > were living under a rock during the Dover trial:
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
>
>      Apparently you didn't follow the trail of links.  Had you read

> "Science Without Bias" herehttp://www.thetownvoice.net/science/b01.htm

> You would have seen this,
> "The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was based on that public
> opinion, not the current science.

Aw, I know you'd like folks to think that was true, but it *isn't*.
I've got the Kitzmiller transcripts, and trust me, the decision was
based on hard science. Judge Jones, a conservative, religious Bush
appointee, ruled - quite rightly - that "intelligent design" was just
a reformulation of creationism.

>  The principle arguments
>  in the case were made and heard by people who likely
> hadn't seen a biology book in thirty years.

Oh, wow. Who told you this? The principle arguments were made, and
backed up by, biologists.

>  When they
> were in college the Miller-Urey experiment had revived
> for a while the dying notion that random assembly of life
> was possible.

Miller-Urey has been repeated and refined any number of times, and the
results all point to that conclusion.

What universe do you live in, anyway?

>  It is impossible with a modern college
> biology textbook, showing the vast complexity of even
> the simplest living things, to doubt the law of intelligent
> design any more than the law of gravity."

No, it isn't. Design is *simple* and, hopefully, elegant. The
diversity of life is kludgy, with the most awkward work-arounds you
can imagine (see the optic nerve laying across the human retina,
therefore creating a blind spot, for an example).

>
> Thanks for your concern nevertheless.

Oh, sugarpants, you're so far behind you think you're ahead. Pitiful.

[DanielSan]

On 1/11/2012 2:49 PM, Doc Smartass wrote:
> "Arlon"<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote in
> news:201201111326.UTC.jek2m3$n83$1...@tioat.net:
>
>> Subject: Intelligent Design is scientific fact
>
> Only if you spell "scientific fact" as "f-u-c-k-i-n-g b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t"

The letters are right next to each other on the keyboard.

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 11, 12:09 pm, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:4c0093fb-2049-46e2...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 11, 10:13 am, "Arlon" wrote:

> >>      No, not at all.  No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis
> >> has been obtained.  I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists" and
> >> "evolutionists" and they always complain when I note they have
> >> no theory of abiogenesis.

> > Since abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, why
> > should they?
>
> > JD
>
>      When I try to explain the debate is "Intelligent Design vs.

> Animalculists" there are complaints it is a dishonest attempt
> to disguise the real debate which they claim is "Evolution vs.
> Creationism."

And they're *right*. Abiogenesis - life from non-life - is a
discussion of how *life arose*. EVOLUTION is a discussion of how life
(however it arose) diversified into the millions of life forms you see
on Planet Earth today.

>  But evolution serves no purpose in a debate
> against creationism.

What, precisely, are you trying to say here? Can you repeat that in
English?

> If, as I noted many times in my debates

> and on my websites, the real debate is whether the story

> requires an intelligent designer then to argue against that

> does require an abiotic origin of life, or a concession there
> must have been an intelligent designer.

No, it *doesn't*. A god could have poofed life into existence, and
then the process of evolution taken hold to produce the diversity of
life we enjoy today.

>
>     Belief that Darwin made any contribution to science is like
> believing he invented the wheel.

No, it's like believing that he provided a mechanism - natural
selection - for a process (evolution) that was already known.

You're really not very good at this, are you? Except, of course, in
your own head.

>  People have been breeding
> plants and animals as long as they've been using wheels.  So

> no, Darwin made no important contribution to science.

Yes. And the model of "artificial selection" served to goad Darwin
into asking crucial questions, like, "How and why would/could a life-
form change absent human intervention?" And he hit upon *natural
selection,* the easily-provable observance that some traits give their
owners a reproductive advantage.

Look at it this way: I plunk you and another person of similar age
and reproductive status down in the African Savannah, about 20 yards
in front of a hungry lion.

One of you will outrun the other one, and live to have more babies.
The difference between you and the guy that became lunch will be the
"reproductive success," whether it be bigger lungs, longer legs, or
whatever made you run faster so the lion caught the other guy.

>     People who believe their arguments in support of evolution
> address any pressing public concern while believing there is
> abiotic origin of life theory, probably learned by rote and don't
> really understand what they do or say.

I understand it very well. Care to address me on the subject?

And remember: Abiogenesis is a *completely* different topic than
evolution. Do try to keep on topic, okay?

>  The teachers who taught
> them there is no abiotic origin of life theory might have
> understood things better.

I understand things just fine. I am considering going back to college
and getting a degree in Biology with a minor in Education, and
becoming a science teacher. Mainly so I can educate dufuses like
*you*.

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 11, 2:19 pm, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:a0rrg7hfl7v6im60k...@4ax.com...

> ranted and raved and ranted and raved only without a single thing to say
>
> Actually you're making a point for me.  Some people think my
> website is useless because "everyone knows" those things
> already.  I rather suspect many people, including conservatives
> and God fearing people, haven't really studied them in detail.
> They are rather guilty of a "sound bite" mentality, much like yours.
> They believe all sorts of things they really can't defend except by
> pointing to their large numbers, or like you, just raving lunatics.

But I understand it in depth, Huckleberry. Want to put your money
where your mouth is?

>
> I suspect Romney will be nominated eventually.  It's way too
> early to call it.  The states moved up their primaries because
> a few states with earlier primaries were making the decision
> without other states having a chance to vote.  The press calling
> Romney unstoppable after 3 states is a slap in the face to the
> efforts of the other states.  Party insiders have never liked long
> drawn out primaries because it pits the party against itself.  The
> public in all 50 states would nevertheless like an opportunity to
> participate.  I suspect that in the long run though Romney will
> get the nomination.

And be crushed in the General Election, when Obama will will a second
term.

>
>      I don't believe most Republicans were ready to try to defeat
> Obama.  It has become a sort of tradition to let a president
> have two terms.

Really? Tell it to Jimmy Carter and George H.W. "Pappy" Bush.

>  Hillary didn't run till after Bush's second.
> There hasn't been a one term president in 30 years.  But
> Obama has been so remarkably bad a president

Well, yeah, for *you*, maybe. My only complaint is that he keeps
trying to reach across the aisle and work with the rightards, who have
stated that their *only* goal is to make Obama a one-term president.

Hopefully, during his second term, he will leave the conservotards in
the dust and institute some policies that really help the working men
and women of this country. The health care act was a good start, but
what we need is single-payer, like Canada.

> it has become
> necessary to run against him full steam.

It isn't, actually.

> The shuffling around
> of front runners every week indicates some Republicans are
> searching for that person who can beat Obama.

And, Huntsman aside, all they've got are idiots like Perry and flip-
floppers like Romney.

>  Romney
> who doesn't really stand for anything isn't that person and
> many Republicans know it, but they were caught without
> a real choice.

Doesn't make a particle of difference, since the economy is improving
and Obama is going to win a second term.

>
> So no true conservative gets the nod and Obama hangs on
> another four years.  What happens to my website?

Hopefully, if your posts are any indication, it remains unread and
gradually withers away to nothingness.

>  People
> need it more than ever so that maybe by 2016 they can
> put forth an actually good choice.

If your posts are any indication, your web site is shite. You
apparently don't know the oft-cited article from Shineola.

[SkyEyes]

On Jan 11, 1:12 pm, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:uelrg79a3d5j1j2ra...@4ax.com...

>
> > But does it have to be so in-our-face with it?
>
>      Where you put your face is your business, I suppose.

Well not really, since you're posting to alt.atheism. I notice that
it's not even a cross-post; you merely came here and started spouting
idiocy.

>
> > We're not here to educate the deliberately stupid and wilfully
> > ignorant who live in their deluded fantasy world.
>
>      What are you here for?  What is the meaning of life?

Life has no intrinsic meaning; you have to work out the meaning for
your own life. I don't know why *you* are here; me? I'm here to feed
the cats. No, really.

>
> > Liar.   ...  > Liar  ... >  No such thing, liar.
> > No such thing, liar.
>
>      By now it must be long past the time you've realized I'm
> impervious to internet flaming and name calling.  So why do
> you go on so?

Chris likes to vent, and he has good reason to, since so many feckless
idiots, like yourself, come to alt.atheism to post their stupid
crap.

I happen to be in a good, mellow mood, so I'm engaging you on a more
intellectual level. That can (and probably will) change.

>
> > Even if there weren't any explanations that still wouldn't prove  that
> > a character out of your mythology that you know only Christians, Jews
> > and Muslims take seriously, did it.
>
>      No it wouldn't.  It would prove some intelligent designer did though.

No, actually, it wouldn't. Stop creating a false dichotomy. The
opposite of "abiogenesis" is *not* "creation by an intelligent
designer," no matter how much you wish it was. There are several
other explanations, such as planet seeding.

>
> > And simple proto-cells were formed in the lab by the late Sidney Fox
> > 40 years ago, and his experiments are repeated as university course
> > work by those studying the relevant fields.
>
>      I believe my website has a comprehensive history of what has been
> created in labs.

Yeah, well, I don't.

>
> > More recent Nobel Prize winning research has been done at Harvard by
> > Jack Szostak's team.
>
>      Do you provide no details because none of them are worth providing?
> It raises the question where is that website?  And do you have one?

Oh, fucking well Google it yourself, sugarpants. Jack Szostak's one
of the preeminent modern biologists, his work is quite easy to find on
the net.

From what you've written elsethread, I'd have to contradict you on
that.

> and the research to find an abiotic theory of
> the origin of life.

But evolution is about *diversity of life*, not abiogenesis.

>  It doesn't matter.

Oh, but it *does*, cupcake, it *does*.

>  There is no sound, rational
> abiotic theory of the origin of life,

*YET*.

> which fact trumps all your whining.

Nope. "No scientific explanation yet" does NOT equal "magick!"

Sorry.

[DanielSan]

On 1/11/2012 3:21 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:12 pm, "Arlon"<staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
> Address.invalid> wrote:
>> "Christopher A. Lee"<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:uelrg79a3d5j1j2ra...@4ax.com...

>>> More recent Nobel Prize winning research has been done at Harvard by
>>> Jack Szostak's team.
>>
>> Do you provide no details because none of them are worth providing?
>> It raises the question where is that website? And do you have one?
>
> Oh, fucking well Google it yourself, sugarpants. Jack Szostak's one
> of the preeminent modern biologists, his work is quite easy to find on
> the net.

And here's a good video on the origin of life from Dr. Szostak. It has
bright colors, animation, and great music to help explain things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

[Don Martin]

"Arlon" <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
> "Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1941089934347998342.0046...@news20.forteinc.com...
>
> < ... > <saving much bandwidth>
>
>> Given the choice between Mr. Lee's flames and some pustule's "really cool"
>> website, I'll take the flames every time.
>
> Then it's true there's no accounting for tastes.

Particularly by those who have none.

--
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/

[Doc Smartass]

"Arlon" <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote in
news:201201111511.UTC.jek8qa$p4a$1...@tioat.net:

>
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

> news:lt7rg71ek2lfc5gvd...@4ax.com...

>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
>> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Please see
>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>
>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net
>

>> What a [f-word] moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

You fucking actually fucking had to fucking censor that?

> Flames? That's all you have?

That's all you deserve.

[Josef Balluch]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, Arlon wrote:


> Please see

> The Town Voice > Science > page B1

Hmmmmmmmm, ........ no solid support for the claim that "Intelligent Design
is scientific fact". Mostly, what is presented is assertion and Argument
from Ignorance.

> The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science

Nope. No solid support for the claim that "Intelligent Design is scientific
fact". Some assertion, some straw men and inevitably more Argument from
Ignorance, but no actual support for the claim.

> The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness

Tsk. Lots of straw men, some more Argument from Ignorance, but still no
solid support for the claim that "Intelligent Design is scientific fact".

> The Town Voice > Religion > page E1

Ah, something different!! Some whining about the fact that religion "ain't
what it oughta be". Unfortunately, there is still no support for the claim
that "Intelligent Design is scientific fact".


> http://www.thetownvoice.net


Better luck next time, Spanky.


Regards,

Josef


Religion is man's attempt to communicate with the weather.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:12:17 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

>news:uelrg79a3d5j1j2ra...@4ax.com...
>
>> But does it have to be so in-our-face with it?
>
> Where you put your face is your business, I suppose.

Here's a clue, sociopath: you posted your mindless stupidity in
alt.atheism, we didn't go looking for you.

>> We're not here to educate the deliberately stupid and wilfully
>> ignorant who live in their deluded fantasy world.
>
> What are you here for? What is the meaning of life?

To discuss atheist issues with fellow atheists in a supposedly
theism-fee place.

What are you here for?

And where did you demonstrate that there even is a meaning of life
before asking what it is?

>> Liar. ... > Liar ... > No such thing, liar.
>> No such thing, liar.

I notice you deleted your lies. You mindless retards always give
yourselves away.

If they weren't lies you would have left them there for everybody to
see.

But you couldn't.

> By now it must be long past the time you've realized I'm
>impervious to internet flaming and name calling. So why do
>you go on so?

There was no name-calling. You lied. Stop being such a whining
hypocrite.

>> Even if there weren't any explanations that still wouldn't prove that
>> a character out of your mythology that you know only Christians, Jews
>> and Muslims take seriously, did it.
>
> No it wouldn't. It would prove some intelligent designer did though.

No it wouldn't.

Learn some basic logic including what an argument from ignorance is
and why it is a fallacy.

Ditto non sequitur.

Are you really this stupid or just an asshole being an anal sphinctre
for the sake of being a rectal orifice?

>> And simple proto-cells were formed in the lab by the late Sidney Fox
>> 40 years ago, and his experiments are repeated as university course
>> work by those studying the relevant fields.

Actually is was 50 not 40, apologies for the typo.

> I believe my website has a comprehensive history of what has been
>created in labs.

Obviously not because if you did you wouldn't have said there were no
theories.

In fact this was one of your lies - "No scientist suggests a theory of

abiogenesis has been obtained".

>> More recent Nobel Prize winning research has been done at Harvard by
>> Jack Szostak's team.

And you didn't know this either.

> Do you provide no details because none of them are worth providing?

What a fucking moron, a liar and a hypocrite as well as an idiot .

I explain things in my own words unlike you morons who simply point to
web sites.

>It raises the question where is that website? And do you have one?

BOTH ARE COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO ANYBODY WHO KEEPS UP WITH MODERN
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THROUGH MAGAZINES LIKE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, AND
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTED ON SZOSTAK'S NOBEL PRIZE INCLUDING BRIEF
DESCRIPTIONS OF HIS WORK.

Fox addressed a symposium at the Vatican hosted by a previous Pope,
who unlike the current one accepted modern science apart from the
presumption of ensoulment at some stage.

His presentation was later published n the University of South
Alabama's "Harbinger" magazine.

I suspect you won't bother to read it because even though it is
written for the intelligent layman, it will be way over your pointy
little head.

(note that he used the word "Evolution" because the presentation was
made many years before the magazine article, and the word
"abiogenesis" hadn't even been coined - it's always a problem
describing new concepts using existing language that doesn't have the
right words with the specific meaninds needed).

My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

And here's a video describing Szostak's work and results...

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

The youtube page has likns to more detailed and more technical stuff.

>> One of the expert witnesses on the plaintiff's side was a

I notice you can't address the following refutation of your lies about
the Dover trial...

>Kitzmiller v. Dover and the research to find an abiotic theory of
>the origin of life. It doesn't matter. There is no sound, rational
>abiotic theory of the origin of life, which fact trumps all your
>whining.

What whining were you lying about?

Why did you lie yet again about no theories for abiogenesis?

And what "urban legends" are you lying about?

The trial was very well reported and the re asons for the decision
given.

It's on Wikipedia.

It was the subject of documentary programs on both sides of the
Atlantic.

Here's the entire NOVA program on youtube. The links skip to the
decision and its aftermath, including the death threats....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hTZ5AYzs8o#t=01h45m08s

It loaded quickly on Internet Explorer but took forever on Firefox.

Watch the whole thing though, even though it's two hours long, not
just this last bit.

Here's video of Judge Jones describing what happened including the
legal background. how judges work etc.

Watch the whole thing even though it's more than an hour...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2nY67e6LQ&feature=related

When you have watched all these videos you can ask questions that show
you have understood them. and we will do our best to answer them even
though we're not here to educate you about something that is nothing
to do with atheism.

Stupid questions which show you have taken no notice but try to pick
holes in well researched and understood science out of nothing but
self-imposed ignorance, or attempts to disprove reality, basic logic
errors etc will earn you every atom of contempt you deswerve.

Because you have been totally out of league since you arrived.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:28:15 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:12:17 -0500, "Arlon"
><staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:uelrg79a3d5j1j2ra...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> But does it have to be so in-our-face with it?
>>
>> Where you put your face is your business, I suppose.
>>

>>> We're not here to educate the deliberately stupid and wilfully
>>> ignorant who live in their deluded fantasy world.
>>
>> What are you here for? What is the meaning of life?
>>

>>> Liar. ... > Liar ... > No such thing, liar.
>>> No such thing, liar.

They are too narcissistic to understand that If they weren't lies they
would have left them in for all to see, and what this tells us about
them.

>> By now it must be long past the time you've realized I'm
>>impervious to internet flaming and name calling. So why do
>>you go on so?
>

>You're obviously impervious to facts and reason too, so why should we
>waste our time trying to educate you? A brick is more worthy of our
>attention.

It's a typical fundie loonie.

>>> Even if there weren't any explanations that still wouldn't prove that
>>> a character out of your mythology that you know only Christians, Jews
>>> and Muslims take seriously, did it.
>>
>> No it wouldn't. It would prove some intelligent designer did though.
>>

>>> And simple proto-cells were formed in the lab by the late Sidney Fox
>>> 40 years ago, and his experiments are repeated as university course
>>> work by those studying the relevant fields.

That was a typo, it was actuall50, He did the work in the 1950s and
1960s.

>> I believe my website has a comprehensive history of what has been
>>created in labs.
>

>What you believe is of no consequence.

He is telling obvious porkies, because if it did he would know about
Fox and Sxostak.

><snipped for brevity>

>
>>
>> I am thoroughly familiar with the urban legends surrounding
>>Kitzmiller v. Dover and the research to find an abiotic theory of
>>the origin of life.
>

>You'll forgive me, I trust, if I call 'bullshit' on that....

The loonies believe the lies of conservative pundits like Coulter,
O'Reilly, Robertson etc

>>It doesn't matter. There is no sound, rational
>>abiotic theory of the origin of life, which fact trumps all your
>>whining.
>

>And your scientific qualifications for making this statement would be?
>
>What's that? You have none? Why is no one surprised?
>
>Ignorance and arrogance is a very unattractive combination, Skippy.
>You really should try to remedy one or the other.

It's all too common among ignorant fundamentalists.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:19:27 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:a0rrg7hfl7v6im60k...@4ax.com...
>ranted and raved and ranted and raved only without a single thing to say
>
>Actually you're making a point for me. Some people think my
>website is useless because "everyone knows" those things
>already. I rather suspect many people, including conservatives
>and God fearing people, haven't really studied them in detail.
>They are rather guilty of a "sound bite" mentality, much like yours.
>They believe all sorts of things they really can't defend except by
>pointing to their large numbers, or like you, just raving lunatics.

What a fucking moron. Not just stupid but a pig-ignorant, arrogant,
lying bullshitter as well.

Your web site is useless because it is baseless bullshit and outright
falsehoods.

Whether you like it or not, evolution is an observed fact, abiogenesis
research has come up with all sorts of things you lied about not
having been pound, and all the urban legends about the Dover trial are
from the creationists.

You haven't even bothered to watch all the videos you were given, have
you?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:21:57 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>Life has no intrinsic meaning; you have to work out the meaning for
>your own life. I don't know why *you* are here; me? I'm here to feed
>the cats. No, really.

Cats are people too, who think humans have kittens on the end of their
arms.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:27:24 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/11/2012 3:21 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 1:12 pm, "Arlon"<staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
>> Address.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Christopher A. Lee"<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:uelrg79a3d5j1j2ra...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> More recent Nobel Prize winning research has been done at Harvard by
>>>> Jack Szostak's team.
>>>
>>> Do you provide no details because none of them are worth providing?
>>> It raises the question where is that website? And do you have one?
>>
>> Oh, fucking well Google it yourself, sugarpants. Jack Szostak's one
>> of the preeminent modern biologists, his work is quite easy to find on
>> the net.

These morons cut'n'paste stuff, give URLs to sites etc that they don't
understand in order to degfend it when challenged.

Which is why explanations should always be given in one's own word -
that shows itthey are actually understood.

>And here's a good video on the origin of life from Dr. Szostak. It has
>bright colors, animation, and great music to help explain things:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

He's been given it but couldn't be bothered to watch it.

[Vergil]

In article
<a8f7d37a-c386-4bf1...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> Dr.ARLON published a lot of garbage,

> Virgil said,
> We atheists merely follow the evidence

>
> You seem to have struck a nerve among

> the deviantCreatoists here, Arlon. There is immense
> proof of evolution and NONE for Intelligent Design
>.
>
> Atheism is the most sane of all dogmas,
> as it is does not require belief in
> anything unproven or unprovable.

The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:

Most of Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.

But it is only the souls of those humans that Christianity is concerned
with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say nothing
at all about such souls.

Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.

So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
part of True Christianity, or any true religion.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:18:00 -0500, Josef Balluch
<josef....@sympatico.can> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, Arlon wrote:
>
>> Please see
>
>> The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>
>Hmmmmmmmm, ........ no solid support for the claim that "Intelligent Design
>is scientific fact". Mostly, what is presented is assertion and Argument
>from Ignorance.

Apart from argument from the bogus authority of mind quotes chosen to
make it look as if a scientist hold the opposite POV to the one he
actually has, that pretty well sums up creationists.

[Arlon]

"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:e55f5d20-df32-4875...@r16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 11, 11:23 am, "Arlon" wrote:

>> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jekgvr$mnc$1...@dont-email.me...

>>> ... <saving bandwidth>
>>> Creationists have been claiming that "life is too complicated to have
>>> been
>>> randomly assembled" for a long time. The claim has two fatal flaws.
>>> First,
>>> no one is claiming that life was "randomly assembled." The creationists
>>> fail to understand that abiogenesis is based on the non-random chemical
>>> properties of matter. Second, no explanation of an "intelligent
>>> designer"
>> > can account for the designer's origins. Intelligent Design is nothing
>> > but
>>> religion in a new package.

>> I find it most remarkable that anyone would try to insist something
>> was created without an intelligent designer when they can't assemble it
>> with one.
>>
>> Can you explain how that works?

> Certainly. Mathematics [see "Mandelbrot process"], work in the lab,
> plus computer programs have demonstrated that highly complex processes
> can arise from *simple* processes repeated time after time after time,
> but with slightly different variables - such as those provided by
> random mutation.

The Town Voice > Science > B20 The Illusion of Randomness
or http://www.thetownvoice.net/science/b20.htm
Please see especially the highlight box.

> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

Are some degrees better than others really?

[Arlon]

"Rob Par" <rob...@mypbmail.com> wrote in message
news:fburg7d7pbok3kpj0...@4ax.com...

< saving bandwidth>
> ... > ... > ...

> And a all powerful God Just happened to come into existence. Then after a
> unbelievably long time
> decided to create a universe, and create man in his image so as to have a
> inferior creature to
> worship him?

That's not the best description I've heard, but something like that
many suppose.

> Come on get real, Santa Claus is more realistic.

It's funny in a way. Many dull witted, artless, pedestrian goons have
your attitude as well.

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"

<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

Your idiot web site didn't have any scientific fact.

There is no beef in your hamburger.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[ckdb...@gmail.com]

On Jan 11, 10:10 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:lt7rg71ek2lfc5gvd...@4ax.com...

>
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"

> > <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
> >>Please see
> >>The Town Voice > Science > page B1

> >>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science

> >>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness

> >>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>

> >>http://www.thetownvoice.net
> > What a [f-word] moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
>

>      Flames?

That's all your idiotic assertion deserves.

[Smiler]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:19:42 -0500, Arlon wrote:

>
> "Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1941089934347998342.0046...@news20.forteinc.com...
>
> < ... > <saving much bandwidth>
>
>> Given the choice between Mr. Lee's flames and some pustule's "really cool"
>> website, I'll take the flames every time.
>
> Then it's true there's no accounting for tastes.
>
>

> Websites rule, Facebook drools.

How old are you,7?

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

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

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Arlon]

"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jel5sv$odv$3...@dont-email.me...

> And here's a good video on the origin of life from Dr. Szostak. It has
> bright colors, animation, and great music to help explain things:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Well. Now you can thank me for not mentioning Szostak. He makes you
look stupid in a way that almost seems deliberate.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:25:19 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
><staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
> Your idiot web site didn't have any scientific fact.
>
> There is no beef in your hamburger.

But there's plenty between his ears.


>
>Warlord Steve
>BAAWA

[DanielSan]

Did you watch the video? Did you have something to dispute? Why did
you go to the insult instead of debating the substance?

[Arlon]

"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote in message
news:bopp68ijej5l$.nab30w1zjj3p$.dlg@40tude.net...

> You're on Usenet, which means you need to present your argument here, in
> this newsgroup. If you don't understand the page you're citing well
> enough to explain it, don't bring it up.
>
> --
> L. Raymond

Oh great! Someone's making rules now. I'd always hoped usenet would
get some.

Here's the text I wrote myself and referenced.

Proponents of the theory of "emergent complexity" will sometimes use
pictures of snowflakes to argue that complexity "emerges" in nature. Water
molecules are among the more simple in nature, true. And freezing is a
simple agency, true. Although the crystals formed by the freezing of water
vapor are extremely "varied" there is a definite pattern and they are always
hexagons. That means that, as with other naturally occurring agencies, the
characteristics are limited. Snowflakes cannot even draw something so
simple as a square any more than smoke will.
Proponents of the theory that "order arises from disorder" use examples
which are actually the "simplicity" formed as potential energy decreases.
Neither the "complexity" nor the "order" can "arise" in nature. They
are the pre-existing characteristics of the materials and agencies which are
themselves no designers of the complex systems required for life.
Although some of the simpler components of life systems have been
assembled in labs; micelles, amino acids, none were assembled using smoke
and snow. With all the availability of smoke and snow, nothing has been
assembled from them so far but wet soot.

[DanielSan]

On 1/11/2012 6:51 PM, Arlon wrote:

> Here's the text I wrote myself and referenced.

I can tell.

>
> Proponents of the theory of "emergent complexity" will sometimes use
> pictures of snowflakes to argue that complexity "emerges" in nature. Water
> molecules are among the more simple in nature, true. And freezing is a
> simple agency, true. Although the crystals formed by the freezing of water
> vapor are extremely "varied" there is a definite pattern and they are always
> hexagons. That means that, as with other naturally occurring agencies, the
> characteristics are limited. Snowflakes cannot even draw something so
> simple as a square any more than smoke will.

So what?

> Proponents of the theory that "order arises from disorder" use examples
> which are actually the "simplicity" formed as potential energy decreases.

And?

> Neither the "complexity" nor the "order" can "arise" in nature.

Now that's just evidentially false.

> They
> are the pre-existing characteristics of the materials and agencies which are
> themselves no designers of the complex systems required for life.

The earliest forms of life were not the complex systems we see today.

> Although some of the simpler components of life systems have been
> assembled in labs; micelles, amino acids, none were assembled using smoke
> and snow.

Of course not. And no actual life has been created in a lab. Yet. But
saying that it's impossible to create life from non-life because we
haven't done it is like saying going to the moon is impossible because
the Wright Brothers couldn't.

> With all the availability of smoke and snow, nothing has been
> assembled from them so far but wet soot.

What are you on about with smoke and snow? The Earth had several orders
of magnitude more time and environmental conditions (among others)
including mechanical forces such as waves crashing against rocks.

We can show that the building blocks of life can arise naturally (as
you've said). And we can show that monomers such as amino acids can
self-polymerize into DNA and RNA inside vesicles. We can show that
stronger vesicles can "eat" weaker vesicles purely by thermodynamics,
incorporating the amino acids into longer DNA and RNA strands. The
mechanical forces I mentioned can break vesicles apart. The stronger
vesicles "eat" the weaker vesicles again, thus creating early life and
thus creating evolution.

Purely by nature.

We just haven't been doing this for the time and area necessary to
actually kick off life, but we have evidence that it can arise naturally.

If you have any questions on the above, please ask them. :)

If all you have are insults, don't bother posting them because they will
be laughed at.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Project much?

[Christopher A. Lee]

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

[Arlon]

"Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:185675018348013189.20261...@news20.forteinc.com...

> "Arlon" <staywell.arlon@ (gmail.com)> wrote:

>> "Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> wrote

>>> Given the choice between Mr. Lee's flames and some pustule's "really
>>> cool"
>>> website, I'll take the flames every time.

>> Then it's true there's no accounting for tastes.

> Particularly by those who have none.

Don't stop there. Account for yours.

[Christopher A. Lee]

I gave him the Szostak video, the 2 hour Nova video about the Dover
trial with a link directly to Judge Jones' decision and the
vilification including death threats he received for it, a one hoar
address he made about the trial, how the law works and why his critics
had no understanding of it, and the long magazine article that
repeated Fox's presentation at the Vatican.

Which would have taken several hours to watch and read.

Predicting he wouldn't but would continue to attack what he was
ignorant about trying to pick holes in it that he would know weren't
even there if he had bothered to learn from the videos and article.

[Arlon]

"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:s4crg71r7o9j0neb2...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon" wrote:

>>Please see
>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>
>>http://www.thetownvoice.net

> Free clue, Sunshine. Any idiot who thinks ID is a scientific fact - or
> a scientific *anything* - wouldn't *know* a scientific fact if it was
> dipped in concentrated habanero pepper juice and rammed up his ass
> with a cattle prod.
>
> HTH

That's a disturbing imagination you have there. Were you raised by
sluts?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Why are you wasting everybody's time by posting stupid questions when
you whould be watching and reading the stuff you have been given?

[John Baker]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:20:17 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>

And many scientifically illiterate imbeciles believe ID is science.
Did you have a point other than the one under your hat?



>

[Arlon]

"Vergil" <ver...@ligrev.org> wrote in message
news:vergil-327E72....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...

> The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>
> Most of Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
> evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.

I am aware what "most" people think and say. I am also aware that
they are wrong. They are wrong about so many things I had to make
a 70+ page web site to track it all.

> But it is only the souls of those humans that Christianity is concerned
> with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say nothing
> at all about such souls.
>
> Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
> and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>
> So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
> part of True Christianity, or any true religion.

I'm sure most nine year olds would agree with you.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:44:05 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>

You, on the other hand, need no help from anyone to look stupid beyond
belief.

You're out of your league here, Junior. And that's a stone cold fact.


>

[Arlon]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:8nlsg716a4g872pmd...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:41:14 -0500, "Arlon" wrote:

>>"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote

>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon" wrote:

>>>>Please see
>>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>>
>>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net

>>> Free clue, Sunshine. Any idiot who thinks ID is a scientific fact - or
>>> a scientific *anything* - wouldn't *know* a scientific fact if it was
>>> dipped in concentrated habanero pepper juice and rammed up his ass
>>> with a cattle prod.
>>>
>>> HTH

>> That's a disturbing imagination you have there. Were you raised by
>>sluts?

> Why are you wasting everybody's time by posting stupid questions when
> you whould be watching and reading the stuff you have been given?

It's because I have been doing this for many years now, debated in
high school and college, against Cambridge no less, and I know about
all your nonsense already and have provided you a 70+ page web site
to answer it all. And why aren't _you_ reading _that_???

[Colanth]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:10:45 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

>news:lt7rg71ek2lfc5gvd...@4ax.com...

>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon"
>> <staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Please see
>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>
>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net
>

>> What a [f-word] moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
>
> Flames? That's all you have?

He was being nice. Your post doesn't even warrant being ignored.
--
"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a
monotheism can believe anything... just give him time to rationalize
it." - Robert Heinlein

[Colanth]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:23:52 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jekgvr$mnc$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> ... <saving bandwidth>
>
>> Creationists have been claiming that "life is too complicated to have been
>> randomly assembled" for a long time. The claim has two fatal flaws. First,
>> no one is claiming that life was "randomly assembled." The creationists
>> fail to understand that abiogenesis is based on the non-random chemical
>> properties of matter. Second, no explanation of an "intelligent designer"
>> can account for the designer's origins. Intelligent Design is nothing but
>> religion in a new package.
>
> I find it most remarkable that anyone would try to insist something
>was created without an intelligent designer when they can't assemble it
>with one.
>
> Can you explain how that works?
>

Ask Sutherland. He demonstrated how it works.
--
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his
Reason." - Martin Luther

[Colanth]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:13:40 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>
>"John Locke" <john...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:77irg7pq55qu6th0k...@4ax.com...

>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, "Arlon" wrote:
>
>>>Please see
>>>The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>>>The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>>>The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>>>The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>>
>>>http://www.thetownvoice.net
>

>> "Intelligent Design" is religion. It has no scientific value and no
>> answers.
>
> It is rather a statement of the fact that you have no answers.
>
>> ID has been debunked and rejected by every credible
>> university and research center on the planet.
>
> No, not at all. No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis
>has been obtained.

Sutherland, so plonk that god.

> I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists" and
>"evolutionists" and they always complain when I note they have
>no theory of abiogenesis.

Since abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with one another.
--
"These budget numbers are not just estimates; these are the actual
results for the fiscal year that ended February the 30th." - George
Bush

[Colanth]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:09:49 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4c0093fb-2049-46e2...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>
>> On Jan 11, 10:13 am, "Arlon" wrote:
>
>>> No, not at all. No scientist suggests a theory of abiogenesis

>>> has been obtained. I've debated hundreds of "Darwinists" and

>>> "evolutionists" and they always complain when I note they have
>>> no theory of abiogenesis.
>

>> Since abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, why
>> should they?
>>
>> JD
>
> When I try to explain the debate is "Intelligent Design vs.
>Animalculists" there are complaints it is a dishonest attempt
>to disguise the real debate which they claim is "Evolution vs.
>Creationism." But evolution serves no purpose in a debate
>against creationism. If, as I noted many times in my debates
>and on my websites, the real debate is whether the story
>requires an intelligent designer then to argue against that
>does require an abiotic origin of life, or a concession there
>must have been an intelligent designer.

First you have to prove the objective existence of the designer.
Whether you think a designer is needed or not isn't evidence of
design. If there's no designer, there can't have been design.
Asserting that the universe had to be designed is a fallacy.
Redefining "universe" to "creation" to show the need for a creator is
just dishonest nonsense.

Hawking showed how the universe can come into existence with a
designer and Sutherland showed how life can come into existence
without a creator.

So what part of reality needs a creator?
--
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!" - French Knight

[Christopher A. Lee]

You're lying through your teeth again, sonny,

Reality isn't nonsense.

The state of abiogenesis research isn't nonsense, the falsehoods you
told about the Dover trial are transparent lies and intelligent design
is a pre-existing religious belief that Liars For God pretend is
science.

When somebody posts an article titled "Intelligent Design is
Scientific Fact", I don't need to go to a web site the poster claims
to support such a transparent lie, to know that it is worthless
bullshit.

Was that clear enough even for you?

We're not here to educate you.

And the facts you deny aren't up for debate,

What's wrong with you?

Because whatever you pretend, evolution is a fact that won't go away
no matter how much you lie about it, you are totally ignorant of the
state of abiogenesis research so it's obvious you lied about all the
lab work being described on your web site, and your lies about the
Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board trial were refuted by the judge
himself.

Fox and Szostak give the lie to your claim that scientists have no
theory for abiogenesis. And because you didn't even know their work to
your pretence that it included all the lab work, it gave that the lie
too.
.

[Arlon]

"Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.01.12....@JoeKing.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:19:42 -0500, Arlon wrote:

>> "Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> < ... > <saving much bandwidth>

>>> Given the choice between Mr. Lee's flames and some pustule's "really
>>> cool"
>>> website, I'll take the flames every time.

>> Then it's true there's no accounting for tastes.
>>
>>
>> Websites rule, Facebook drools.

> How old are you,7?

Excuse me. What are you driving at?

I mean it's true, isn't it? Facebook is for people who can
neither write well in English nor any computer language, then
try both. It's like those people who have pictures in their
wallet and one of them came with the wallet from the store.
I know people are doing less and less for themselves these
days. They don't change their own motor oil any more. But
how helpless can they get?

[Colanth]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:19:27 -0500, "Arlon"
<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>But Obama has been so remarkably bad a president

Said like someone who is rather guilty of a "sound bite" mentality.

>So no true conservative gets the nod and Obama hangs on
>another four years. What happens to my website? People
>need it more than ever so that maybe by 2016 they can
>put forth an actually good choice.

Not if their only issue is beating the Democrat. People are starting
to want a candidate who's FOR something.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord
make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." - Voltaire

[Colanth]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:12:17 -0500, "Arlon"

<staywel...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:

>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

>news:uelrg79a3d5j1j2ra...@4ax.com...

>> We're not here to educate the deliberately stupid and wilfully
>> ignorant who live in their deluded fantasy world.

> What are you here for?

If you read the charter, you'd know. Discussing issues of interest to
atheists.

>> Even if there weren't any explanations that still wouldn't prove that
>> a character out of your mythology that you know only Christians, Jews
>> and Muslims take seriously, did it.

> No it wouldn't. It would prove some intelligent designer did though.

No, it would only prove that we had no explanation. The sun didn't
move across the sky because a god pulled it across in his chariot
until we figured out that we were the ones moving.

>> And simple proto-cells were formed in the lab by the late Sidney Fox
>> 40 years ago, and his experiments are repeated as university course
>> work by those studying the relevant fields.

> I believe my website has a comprehensive history of what has been
>created in labs.

Not if it doesn't include Sutherland's latest work.

>> More recent Nobel Prize winning research has been done at Harvard by
>> Jack Szostak's team.

> Do you provide no details because none of them are worth providing?

Because if you want to maintain a site about the subject, you should
have the details on your site.

> I am thoroughly familiar with the urban legends surrounding
>Kitzmiller v. Dover and the research to find an abiotic theory of
>the origin of life. It doesn't matter. There is no sound, rational
>abiotic theory of the origin of life, which fact trumps all your
>whining.
>
Seeing it happen negates the need for a theory, and trumps all YOUR
whining. Evidently you're a few years behind on what's actually been
done.
--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful."- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

[Colanth]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:16:57 -0600, "Mel Franks" <m...@xcom.net> wrote:

>"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c97bab28-abb2-4879...@q17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 11, 7:25 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-

>Address.invalid> wrote:
>> Please see
>> The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>> The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>> The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>> The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>
>> http://www.thetownvoice.net
>

>> I.D. is all around us especially DNA with its incredible complex
>> informational messaging system giving specific instructions for cell
>> and body part manufacture.
>
>Just curious, how is the existence of DNA an argument for I.D.?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. With Davy, ignorantiam is easy.
--
"The man who is always waving the flag usually waives what it stands
for".- Laurence J. Peter, educator and author (1919-1990)

[Colanth]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:38:06 -0800 (PST), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 7:25 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-
>Address.invalid> wrote:
>> Please see
>> The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>> The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>> The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>> The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>
>> http://www.thetownvoice.net
>
>I.D. is all around us especially DNA with its incredible complex

Behe has been so destroyed that he hasn't said a word in years.

>the final nail

in ID would be Sutherland, who showed abiogenesis.
--
"Don't sweat it—it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes." - Spaf

[Colanth]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:26:44 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Jan 11, 6:25 am, "Arlon" <staywell.ar...@Use-Author-Supplied-

>Address.invalid> wrote:
>> Please see
>> The Town Voice > Science > page B1
>> The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science
>> The Town Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness
>> The Town Voice > Religion > page E1
>>
>> http://www.thetownvoice.net
>

>Oh, please. Intelligent Design is a mask for creationism, pure and
>simple.

The DI even stated that in writing - that that was the intent from the
start, to sneak creationism into the public schools under another name
by replacing "God" with "intelligent designer" so they could claim
that it wasn't religion. The court wasn't fooled for a moment, only
the fools are fooled
--
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's
job to interpret law." - George Bush

[Freedom Man]

How pathetically ignorant in the sciences you are!

See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?

Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.

"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind
intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell." --- Karl Popper

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig

Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he
is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and
wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.

"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."

--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins

"Cult today, religion tomorrow."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:59 -0500, Arlon wrote:

> Please see
> The Town Voice > Science > page B1
> The Town Voice > Science > Dismissing the Myths of Science The Town
> Voice > Science > The Illusion of Randomness The Town Voice > Religion >
> page E1
>
> http://www.thetownvoice.net

I have no idea who this "Arlon Staywell" character is, but he needs to
get a science education past what he learned - and got wrong - in grade
three.

<quote>
the most important facts noted by science began as opinions and acquired
certainty over many repeated trials over many years. At some point it
was concluded that neither matter nor energy can be created nor
destroyed. It was decided that the certainty of the fact was comparable
to the "law" of gravity and so it is called a "law" of thermodynamics.
</quote>

Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. It's not opinion, it's
hypothesis, and if it doesn't hold up to repeated attempts to show it
wrong, it gets fixed or tossed. Phlogiston theory, for example, could
not hold up to scrutiny and was scrapped. As were "N rays" and a host of
other things. Why? Simple: the evidence did not support them.

<quote>
The opinion that life cannot arise from dead matter without an
intelligent designer has sufficient repeated trials over sufficient years
to quaify as the "law" of intelligent design, with every bit as much
certainty of fact as the "law" of gravity. A problem remains having this
recognized.
</quote>

Sufficient repeated trials? Exactly how many trials have there been?
With what results?

I ask because it should be noted that it took nature something on the
order of a couple hundred million years, in a lab the size of a planet,
to come up with the simplest self-replicating molecules. I might also
point out that were such self-replicators to form today, when they would
be exposed to an extant biosphere and strong competition which has had
millennia and more to adapt, such new self-replicators would almost
certainly wind up as nothing more than a quick snack for something else,
without any actual chance to survive and spread.

Of course, given the phrasing, "life... from dead matter" one might
suspect the author has heard vague mention of Pasteur's work, failed
completely to understand it and its significance and thus come to a
completely asinine conclusion about the implications of this on the
notion of a creator.

<quote>
The problem is historical. There was a time when life was thought to
exist in extremely simple forms such as might be randomly assembled. The
euglena at 150 times magnification appears to be a little drop of green
jelly, but it can swim and will seek the sunny side of its container of
water.
</quote>

Hmm. The Euglena genome, from what I read at http://web.me.com/mfield/
Euglena_gracilis/E._gracilis.html, has a genome consisting of some 250
million base pairs. Unsurprisingly, few expect this critter to arise
from "random assembly". What this has to do with any relevant topic is
unclear, as only a creationist would be retarded enough to even hint that
such a complex organism might arise from random assembly. Perhaps the
author's point is just that - to point out how retarded creationists tend
to be when examining such matters?

<quote>
The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was based on that public opinion, not
the current science. The principle arguments in the case were made and
heard by people who likely hadn't seen a biology book in thirty years.
</quote>

Indeed. Yet they seem to feel qualified to conclude that we require a
creator, because the science they don't know and consistently get wrong
doesn't explain everything in a manner simple enough for them to come to
grips with. Their educational shortcomings are not the fault of science.


Okay, enough with this. Why are you posting links to this idiot's site?
Aside from demonstrating the twerp hasn't got a clue about even the
simplest aspects of the subject, it really doesn't offer anything of
value. Not even comic relief, as it's more sad than funny that anyone
*might* actually believe such tripe.