The one colossal problem with evolution
Frank J
time to remind everyone of the one problem with evolution that's so
ominous, none of the other "problems" are needed. Here it is:
Until "Darwinists" account for the wherebouts of every atom in the
entire history of life on Earth, everyone is free to conclude whatever
alternative explanation - or non-explanation, as it invariably turns
out - that they desire. And they don't need one shred of evidence to
support it. What makes this a monumental problem is the great majority
either demands that double standard or is at least not troubled by it.
Louann Miller
5531cd...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> What makes this a monumental problem is the great majority
> either demands that double standard or is at least not troubled by it.
Heck, they don't even recognize that you're being ironic.
Robert Carnegie
Modern Darwinists claim that atoms don't even have exact whereabouts.
And that they aren't "atoms".
But you're right. Initiatives such as high school students thinking
"critically" about established scientific theory are like a moth
scrutinising the Sun.
wf3h
AND evolutionists have to explain why they believe in genocide, loose
sexual morality, and hangnails as being caused by evolution....
unrestra...@hotmail.com
But... why? Surely the prophet Darwin made it clear that since
genocide and sexual promiscuity evolved, they must be good, yes? Altho
I admit that hangnails are a problem, because if survival of the
fittest were true, all animals would be perfect.
Kermit
Frank J
Which reminds me of how *uncritically* people react to the pretense
that anti-evolution activists are the ones promoting "critical
thinking."
Will in New Haven
Or to the idea that it is "evolutionists" who talk about particle
physics all the time. Or the idea that the Big Bang is a central tenet
of evolutionary theory.
--
Will in New Haven
VoiceOfReason
Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:35 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I see several new "problem with evolution" threads, so this is a good
> > time to remind everyone of the one problem with evolution that's so
> > ominous, none of the other "problems" are needed. Here it is:
> >
> > Until "Darwinists" account for the wherebouts of every atom in the
> > entire history of life on Earth, everyone is free to conclude whatever
> > alternative explanation - or non-explanation, as it invariably turns
> > out - that they desire. And they don't need one shred of evidence to
> > support it. What makes this a monumental problem is the great majority
> > either demands that double standard or is at least not troubled by it.
>
> Modern Darwinists claim that atoms don't even have exact whereabouts.
> And that they aren't "atoms".
Bah! Evilutionists use that as an excuse. There hiding the evidence
of where the atoms are.
;-)
Frank J
It is. Just like anthropogenic global warming. ;-)
>
> --
> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
>On Jan 28, 4:35 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I see several new "problem with evolution" threads, so this is a good
>> time to remind everyone of the one problem with evolution that's so
>> ominous, none of the other "problems" are needed. Here it is:
>>
>> Until "Darwinists" account for the wherebouts of every atom in the
>> entire history of life on Earth, everyone is free to conclude whatever
>> alternative explanation - or non-explanation, as it invariably turns
>> out - that they desire. And they don't need one shred of evidence to
>> support it. What makes this a monumental problem is the great majority
>> either demands that double standard or is at least not troubled by it.
>
>Modern Darwinists claim that atoms don't even have exact whereabouts.
>And that they aren't "atoms".
Do modern physicists have claims about biological evolution,
too?
>But you're right. Initiatives such as high school students thinking
>"critically" about established scientific theory are like a moth
>scrutinising the Sun.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
J. J. Lodder
Robert Carnegie
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:04:32 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
>
> >On Jan 28, 4:35 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> I see several new "problem with evolution" threads, so this is a good
> >> time to remind everyone of the one problem with evolution that's so
> >> ominous, none of the other "problems" are needed. Here it is:
>
> >> Until "Darwinists" account for the wherebouts of every atom in the
> >> entire history of life on Earth, everyone is free to conclude whatever
> >> alternative explanation - or non-explanation, as it invariably turns
> >> out - that they desire. And they don't need one shred of evidence to
> >> support it. What makes this a monumental problem is the great majority
> >> either demands that double standard or is at least not troubled by it.
>
> >Modern Darwinists claim that atoms don't even have exact whereabouts.
> >And that they aren't "atoms".
>
> Do modern physicists have claims about biological evolution,
> too?
Hey, Darwinists /are/ into atoms. Darwinian Nucleic Acid is made of
atoms. Mutations are movements of atoms in the DNA. Aren't they? I
mean, oversimplified, but /aren't/ they?
And when you look closely at one or more atoms, it is "Bienvenido
Indeterminacy".
Will in New Haven
Well, there aren't really any "Darwinists" except in your fevered
imagination. However, evolutionary biology certainly involves atoms,
as does house painting, carpentry and cooking.No one in any of those
fields, even biology, really needs to worry about the exact location
of subatomic particles.
You imbecile.
J. J. Lodder
He should worry about all the oxygen molecules in his room
conspiring to get all into the same corner to suffocate him.
Since he doesn't know the location and speed of every atom
he can't be sure it won't happen,
Jan
Mike Painter
Always nice to hear from a person who has little knowledge of evolution and
not a clue as to what science does or how it does it.
History is filled with people who did just what you say they can do. Many,
many people recieved awards for just such acts. Most went unnoticed and
unsung as The Darwin Awards are fairly recent.
If yoou will excuse me now I'm going to get my 30 foot long snorkel, drive
to the beach in my PPM and do a little diving. After that it's a trip to
the roof with my new wings.
Robert Carnegie
Now I didn't.say anything about /subatomic/ particles. You imbecile.
However, responsible carpentry at home should include avoiding nailing
through an underfloor or wall cable supplied with free electrons,
which are subatomic particles of course, and cooking is a lot about
chemical reactions, which are a matter of atoms and of, well, more
electrons, anyway. You need to be sure of where those electrons are
in the molecules of what you're cooking or you'll be sorr-y. Or maybe
dead. Many foods are chemically close to poisons. Heck, the dark
brown crusty bits on a pie are somewhat carcinogenic, I hear.
Will in New Haven
Physicists are not talking about entire atoms being in indeterminate
locations. They are talking about subatomic particles. A carpenter can
envisage matter, quite incorrectly, as being solid and in a known
location and not cause himself to make any errors. Most people,
including biologists, can ignore small-scale physics and get the
things they need to do done. The only thing more hilarious than the
people who put all that faith in old texts is the fad of claiming that
there is some great moral or philisophical truth, something that can
affect our lives, in subatomic physics. Mysticism is not the proper
reaction to the indeterminacy principle.
I like the way you embedded "you imbecile." Moron.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com>:
"There seems to be something wrong with our Sarcasm
Detectors today." (Classical reference)
John S. Wilkins
Jane, you ignorant slut, anyone knows that Darwinism is all about
chance, so indeterminacy at the atomic level is just the Darwinists
trying to disprove God, who they all fear.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
fc...@verizon.net
Maybe it's just late and I had a long day, including almost winning my
own Darwin award on the icy sidewalk this morning, but I have no clue
what you're trying to say. Did you miss my irony or are you playing
along?
fc...@verizon.net
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:36:02 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Will in New Haven
Indeterminacy. Aha! I always suspected that Ken Miller (expelled from
"Expelled") was the king of the atheists! ;-)
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
heekster
Well, the first part is a SNL classic.
You got the rest from either one of your less-than-stellar students'
papers, or something Ray posted during an altered state.
Robert Carnegie
> Jane, you ignorant slut, anyone knows that Darwinism is all about
> chance, so indeterminacy at the atomic level is just the Darwinists
> trying to disprove God, who they all fear.
The starting point was "Can the Darwinists adequately account for
every individual atom throughout the lifetime of the earth?" I meant
to point out some flaws with the question itself, but there are other
flaws in it too.
If you want more nonsense about quantum theory, there is an enormous
current discussion thread at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=6179864
that has got to that point, having started from "What Is Space?" I
have contributed, but latterly only by trying to persuade them not to
use the word "universe" for anything that is not everything.
Specifically things that there is more than one of.
John S. Wilkins
I merely inserted an icepick through my eye orbit and moved it around a
bit until I felt that this made sense...
VoiceOfReason
Ooo, that smarts...
Kent Paul Dolan
> Bah! Evilutionists use that as an excuse.
> There(sic) hiding the evidence of where the atoms
> are.
Indeed. Just last week, Max Planck and I were
stealing all the GPS devices from electrons so that
they became uncertain of their exact positions, and
had to go back to deduced reckoning for navigating
their way around atomic orbitals.
xanthian, a couple points to leeward of sane.
The atoms are no longer in Brooklyn? The horror!
Wombat
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:36:02 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Will in New Haven
Classical? A reference to Admiral Beatty's throw away comment at the
Battle of Jutland in 1916 is classical?
Wombat
Will in New Haven
Any reference to battle cruisers is classical. In my unpublished and
unwritten monograph, "Battle Cruisers, Light Tanks and other things
that waste money" I have his subordinate reply "Why is this day
different from all other days?"
Wombat
Battle Cruisers were a flawed Admiral Fisher concept, though when
properly used, as in the Battle of the Falklands, Heligoland Bight and
possibly Dogger Bank, they did more or less what he expected.
There used to be a model of HMS Queen Mary in the National Maritime
Museum, Greenwich. If memory serves it was at least 20 ft long.
Magnificent.
Just a small point - did you mean classic rather than classical, that
I would have got. Classical to me means Aristotle, Seneca etc.
Wombat
Will in New Haven
Except in music, where it means Sinatra. :-)
I don't know what I meant. It was some time ago.
Wombat
wrote:
> On Jan 30, 10:38 am, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 30 Jan, 15:53, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 2:04 am, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
<snip for space>
> > > > > "There seems to be something wrong with our Sarcasm
> > > > > Detectors today." (Classical reference)
>
> > > > Classical? A reference to Admiral Beatty's throw away comment at the
> > > > Battle of Jutland in 1916 is classical?
>
> > > Any reference to battle cruisers is classical. In my unpublished and
> > > unwritten monograph, "Battle Cruisers, Light Tanks and other things
> > > that waste money" I have his subordinate reply "Why is this day
> > > different from all other days?"
>
> > > --
> > > Will in New Haven
>
> > Battle Cruisers were a flawed Admiral Fisher concept, though when
> > properly used, as in the Battle of the Falklands, Heligoland Bight and
> > possibly Dogger Bank, they did more or less what he expected.
> > There used to be a model of HMS Queen Mary in the National Maritime
> > Museum, Greenwich. If memory serves it was at least 20 ft long.
> > Magnificent.
> > Just a small point - did you mean classic rather than classical, that
> > I would have got. Classical to me means Aristotle, Seneca etc.
>
> Except in music, where it means Sinatra. :-)
> I don't know what I meant. It was some time ago.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
I feel we must have been talking past each other.
No harm done, I hope?
Wombat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Wombat
<tri...@multiweb.nl>:
In some circles. You have to admit it has a
certain...something. At least as much as "Damn the
torpedoes; full speed ahead!"
Or "Luigi, bring me my brown pants!" ;-)
Walter Bushell
<84e81bc4-35d3-4c4c...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I hate it when that happens.
Walter Bushell
<243028c1-caa3-445e...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
I thought classical referred to Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn
and contemporaries.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Classical to me means Aristotle, Seneca etc.
Tall trees have deep roots?
xanthian; did Aristotle play classical guitar?
Did Seneca wail on classical sax?
When the creationist tree of life falls in the
forest, is it unheard because it is shallow rooted,
unheard because it is nonexistent, or unheard
because no one notices one tree-kind for all that
noisy evolved multi-species forest?
Do classic comics still count as "classic" in this
deity-flouting gene-fiddling glow-in-the-dark era?
"Leaping Bioluminescent Green Lemurs, Green Lantern!"
Wombat
I have a book at home with a picture showing the USS Tecumseh sinking
at the battle of Mobile Bay just after those famous words were
uttered.
Anyway, I was quibbling the word classical. I would have used the
word classic, but perhaps that's just me.
>
> Or "Luigi, bring me my brown pants!" ;-)
Refers to Mussolini?
Wombat
Wombat
> In article
> <243028c1-caa3-445e-88d8-56687bd8a...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
It does. It also refers to the study of ancient literature at
universities like Oxbridge.
Armed with such a degree, the alumni join the British Civil Service
and proceed to advise Ministers on matters economical and
technological, which they no jack all about. The blind leading the
avaricious, perhaps?
Wombat
Wombat
You are of course correct. My quibble was that a quote such as
Admiral Beatty came out with as a second battle cruiser in the Battle-
Cruiser Fleet exploded and sank could to my mind be better described
as classic. There may be a cross Atlantic difference in terminology
here.
Wombat
Bob Casanova
I probably should have used "historical".
>>
>> Or "Luigi, bring me my brown pants!" ;-)
>
>Refers to Mussolini?
Not specifically. It's the punch line of a joke which starts
with an Italian Admiral learning that Nelson wore a red coat
so if he were injured his men wouldn't see the blood and
lose heart.
--
Wombat
Yes. I love it. Did you know that the senior Italian Officer
captured at the Cape Matapan battle had haemorrhoids?
Wombat
heekster
wrote:
Are you sure that it wasn't a hang-fire tortellini?
Burkhard
an dof course run the Empire... opps ;o)
Bob Casanova
>On 31 Jan, 22:08, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:12:22 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Wombat
>> <tri...@multiweb.nl>:
>> >On 31 Jan, 01:23, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:04:38 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Wombat
>> >> <tri...@multiweb.nl>:
>> >> >On 29 Jan, 23:07, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
<snip>
>> >> >> "There seems to be something wrong with our Sarcasm
>> >> >> Detectors today." (Classical reference)
>>
>> >> >Classical? A reference to Admiral Beatty's throw away comment at the
>> >> >Battle of Jutland in 1916 is classical?
>> >> In some circles. You have to admit it has a
>> >> certain...something. At least as much as "Damn the
>> >> torpedoes; full speed ahead!"
>> >> Or "Luigi, bring me my brown pants!" ;-)
>> >Refers to Mussolini?
>> Not specifically. It's the punch line of a joke which starts
>> with an Italian Admiral learning that Nelson wore a red coat
>> so if he were injured his men wouldn't see the blood and
>> lose heart.
>Yes. I love it. Did you know that the senior Italian Officer
>captured at the Cape Matapan battle had haemorrhoids?
That one doesn't seem to be in my fund of trivia... ;-)
Can't say I'm really surprised; age and a sedentary
lifestyle are contributors.
Wombat
A signal was sent to Admiral Cunningham after the battle "State of
prisoners: six cot cases: fifty slightly injured: one senior officer
has piles."
The CinC quickly replied: "I am NOT surprised."
Taken from "The Battle of Matapan" by SWC Pack
Wombat
Bob Casanova
>A signal was sent to Admiral Cunningham after the battle "State of
>prisoners: six cot cases: fifty slightly injured: one senior officer
>has piles."
>The CinC quickly replied: "I am NOT surprised."
*Wonderful*; thanks! :-)
>Taken from "The Battle of Matapan" by SWC Pack
heekster
wrote:
Now that we have all our piles in good order...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heek...@iwxt.net>:
I knew there was a reason I referred to my inbox as a
"pile"...