My Problem With Evolution

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Science requires observation of things to consider them true.

We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>
>We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.

Yes, fossilization is a rare event relative to all the organisms that
ever lived. That still provides lots of fossils on an absolute scale.

Yes, there were far more species than were captured by the fossil
record.

Yes, there isn't enough fossils to confirm "all our theories".

No, there are enough fossils to confirm many of our theories.

"Were you there?" is a stupid Creationist PRATT. Events from the past
leave behind evidence, which are found in the present. Denial of
evidence of the past leads to the absurd conclusion that God created
everything just before you read this post.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[John Harshman]

That might be a problem if fossils were the sole evidence for evolution.

But more importantly, you don't understand how science works. Do you
believe that oxygen atoms exist? Have you ever seen one? If your answers
are yes and no, respectively, then how do you know that oxygen atoms exist?

[Meteorite Debris]

In article <d5ed63f0-80a0-40e7...@googlegroups.com>,
vtand...@gmail.com says...

>
> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>
> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.

Your problem V is that YOU were not there either. Neither have you
studied palaeontology, biology, genetics, geology, taxonomy or a 100
other fields which provide evidence for evolution.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
> >
> >We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>
>
> Yes, fossilization is a rare event relative to all the organisms that
> ever lived. That still provides lots of fossils on an absolute scale.
>
> Yes, there were far more species than were captured by the fossil
> record.
>
> Yes, there isn't enough fossils to confirm "all our theories".
>
> No, there are enough fossils to confirm many of our theories.

Garbage.

People leave behind records when they die, but animals do not.
Of all the species that ever lived, what per cent have left behind fossils to confirm that they ever existed? The reality is you cannot answer that question because you don't even know with certainty how many there were in total.

Accepting the theory of evolution requires a leap of faith whose conclusion is not supported by any evidence.

>
> "Were you there?" is a stupid Creationist PRATT.

I didn't say that.

Events from the past
> leave behind evidence, which are found in the present. Denial of
> evidence of the past leads to the absurd conclusion that God created
> everything just before you read this post.

I didn't say that, either.
>

[vtand...@gmail.com]

I did not say I knew how life developed. I said you don't have enough evidence to know, either.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 9:40:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
> >
> > We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was
> > there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is
> > a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories
> > of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for
> > most of them.
>
> That might be a problem if fossils were the sole evidence for evolution.

Why don't you show me the other evidence?
Do you know what it is?

[Ernest Major]

Assuming that other people are ignorant just because you are is a
Dunning-Kruger thing to do.

You could of course read the Origin of the Species. Darwin adduced
enough evidence (most of which wasn't fossil) to convince most of his
contemporary biologists.

One line of evidence is that pattern of similarities and differences
among animals. In Darwin's day that applied to nearly exclusively to
anatomical features (Darwin did note some behavioural traits.) Nowadays
we have a vast amount of genetic (and protein) sequence data to add to
the pile of evidence.

Another line of evidence is the distribution of species in space (and
time), which was in Darwin's day perhaps the most important line. Why do
the deserts of the Americas have cacti, and the deserts of Africa
cacti-mimicking spurges, and Madagascar Didiereas? Why do the Carnivora
of Madagascar form a clade? Why does Australia have marsupial analogs to
placental mammals found elsewhere? Why do oceanic islands have a biased
subset of organisms?

--
alias Ernest Major

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 12:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 17/09/2018 07:48, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 9:40:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
> >>>
> >>> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was
> >>> there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is
> >>> a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories
> >>> of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for
> >>> most of them.
> >>
> >> That might be a problem if fossils were the sole evidence for evolution.
> >
> > Why don't you show me the other evidence?
> > Do you know what it is?
> >
>
> Assuming that other people are ignorant just because you are is a
> Dunning-Kruger thing to do.

I didn't say anyone is ignorant. Putting words in someone's mouth is a very dishonest and stupid thing to do.You just reduced your credibility appreciably.

>
> You could of course read the Origin of the Species. Darwin adduced
> enough evidence (most of which wasn't fossil) to convince most of his
> contemporary biologists.

I have read it. I did not convince me.

>
> One line of evidence is that pattern of similarities and differences
> among animals. In Darwin's day that applied to nearly exclusively to
> anatomical features (Darwin did note some behavioural traits.) Nowadays
> we have a vast amount of genetic (and protein) sequence data to add to
> the pile of evidence.

That's too general. If you know the details, show me.

>
> Another line of evidence is the distribution of species in space (and
> time), which was in Darwin's day perhaps the most important line. Why do
> the deserts of the Americas have cacti, and the deserts of Africa
> cacti-mimicking spurges, and Madagascar Didiereas? Why do the Carnivora
> of Madagascar form a clade? Why does Australia have marsupial analogs to
> placental mammals found elsewhere? Why do oceanic islands have a biased
> subset of organisms?

Asking me a bunch of questions tells me nothing. Why didn't you give me the answers and provide evidence to support what you say?

All you gave me is bullshit.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/16/2018 11:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>
> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>

As a paleontologist I can say without a doubt that we have *plenty* of
fossils, but even so, fossils are not the only evidence for evolution. A
look at Douglas Theobald's excellent FAQ titled "29+ evidences for
common descent" should suffice:

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

[Oxyaena]

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

HAND

[Oxyaena]

On 9/17/2018 3:20 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 12:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 17/09/2018 07:48, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 9:40:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was
>>>>> there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is
>>>>> a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories
>>>>> of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for
>>>>> most of them.
>>>>
>>>> That might be a problem if fossils were the sole evidence for evolution.
>>>
>>> Why don't you show me the other evidence?
>>> Do you know what it is?
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that other people are ignorant just because you are is a
>> Dunning-Kruger thing to do.
>
>
> I didn't say anyone is ignorant. Putting words in someone's mouth is a very dishonest and stupid thing to do.You just reduced your credibility appreciably.

You were implying it, and your own credibility is zero anyways.

>
>
>>
>> You could of course read the Origin of the Species. Darwin adduced
>> enough evidence (most of which wasn't fossil) to convince most of his
>> contemporary biologists.
>
> I have read it. I did not convince me.
>>
>> One line of evidence is that pattern of similarities and differences
>> among animals. In Darwin's day that applied to nearly exclusively to
>> anatomical features (Darwin did note some behavioural traits.) Nowadays
>> we have a vast amount of genetic (and protein) sequence data to add to
>> the pile of evidence.
>
> That's too general. If you know the details, show me.
>

Once again, the TalkOrigins Archive is your friend:

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

>>
>> Another line of evidence is the distribution of species in space (and
>> time), which was in Darwin's day perhaps the most important line. Why do
>> the deserts of the Americas have cacti, and the deserts of Africa
>> cacti-mimicking spurges, and Madagascar Didiereas? Why do the Carnivora
>> of Madagascar form a clade? Why does Australia have marsupial analogs to
>> placental mammals found elsewhere? Why do oceanic islands have a biased
>> subset of organisms?
>
> Asking me a bunch of questions tells me nothing. Why didn't you give me the answers and provide evidence to support what you say?

You've got to be one of the most insufferable ignoramuses out there.
He's asking rhetorical questions, we *know* the answers to all of those
questions, even if you're too pig-headed to accept it. For example, why

does Australia have marsupial analogs to placental mammals found

elsewhere? Because of convergent evolution, which happens when two
different sets of unrelated organisms evolve similar adaptations to the
same or similar set of conditions in their respective environments. Why
do most of the deserts of the Americas have cacti and the deserts of
Africa don't? Because cacti evolved in the Americas, and the rise of
cacti-like spurges is because of convergence. The cactus of Madagascar
only got to Madagascar relatively recently by dispersal from the
Americas by way of wind, floating across oceans, or bird shit. Why do
oceanic islands have a biased subset of organisms, because islands are
isolated and therefore only the wildlife of said islands consists only
of what organisms are or were able to reach said islands etc etc etc.

>
> All you gave me is bullshit.

Wrong again, as usual.

>

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

[Oxyaena]

Once again the talk.origins archive is your friend:

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

[Joe Cummings]

It might be pertinent to ask: what kind of evidence will convince you?

You have a "thing" against evolution, and your favourite substances
seem to be "garbage," and "bullshit."

Yoou've made a number of points; let's see how weak they are.

"You weren't there at the time." That' true, just as it's true that
you weren't there at the time when your religion, whatever it is, was
founded. Of course, you'll claim that there are written records of ghe
events leading to the foundation of your religion. But are written
records reliable?

They could be mistaken, badly copied or just plain lying.

Look, I'll give you an exercise in exegesis: Exactly who went to the
tomb of Jesus, who was there to greet them? Would yoiu say the record
was true???

The evidence that is found in excavations is dumb; it can't lie, it
has to be examined by people who have some knowledge of a number of
disciplines- chemistry, physics and so on. In your innocence you
think that there's a vast conspiracy of all the scientists to destroy
religion. Evidence, please.

Perhaps you could give us your idea how life came about. Will you
give us the results of your research into the question? That is, of
course, if you've done any. And please, no "Handy Dandy Creation
Refuter."

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Bill Rogers]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 3:25:03 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

>
> >
> > You could of course read the Origin of the Species. Darwin adduced
> > enough evidence (most of which wasn't fossil) to convince most of his
> > contemporary biologists.
>
> I have read it.

I don't believe you. It's a bit of a slop even for a biologist interested in the subject. Based on what you've posted, I highly doubt that you stuck with it all the way through.

But, you could prove me wrong - just summarize in your own words Darwin's main arguments and some of the evidence he adduces to support them. You don't have to agree with any of it, of course. But if you've actually read it, you should be able to summarize it fairly an accurately.

>I did not convince me.

Why not? Can you give some examples of Darwin's arguments, and the evidence he brings forward and explain why you don't find it convincing?


<snip>

[RonO]

On 9/16/2018 10:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>
> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>

No one alive was there to see your great great great grandfather born,
but you know he existed. How is that possible? How far back do your
ancestors go? We can compare your DNA genome to a chimp and what do we
find? One of your parents may have been a bastard child and no one
knows who the father was, but we could determine his identity with a DNA
test. No witnesses needed.

Science doesn't work the way that you think.

Ron Okimoto

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 3:20:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/17/2018 3:20 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 12:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
> >> On 17/09/2018 07:48, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 9:40:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was
> >>>>> there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is
> >>>>> a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories
> >>>>> of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for
> >>>>> most of them.
> >>>>
> >>>> That might be a problem if fossils were the sole evidence for evolution.
> >>>
> >>> Why don't you show me the other evidence?
> >>> Do you know what it is?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Assuming that other people are ignorant just because you are is a
> >> Dunning-Kruger thing to do.
> >
> >
> > I didn't say anyone is ignorant. Putting words in someone's mouth is a very dishonest and stupid thing to do.You just reduced your credibility appreciably.
>
> You were implying it, and your own credibility is zero anyways.

If you have evidence to support these claims, present it.
Until you do, it's ridiculous bullshit.

>
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You could of course read the Origin of the Species. Darwin adduced
> >> enough evidence (most of which wasn't fossil) to convince most of his
> >> contemporary biologists.
> >
> > I have read it. I did not convince me.
> >>
> >> One line of evidence is that pattern of similarities and differences
> >> among animals. In Darwin's day that applied to nearly exclusively to
> >> anatomical features (Darwin did note some behavioural traits.) Nowadays
> >> we have a vast amount of genetic (and protein) sequence data to add to
> >> the pile of evidence.
> >
> > That's too general. If you know the details, show me.
> >
>
>
> Once again, the TalkOrigins Archive is your friend:
>
> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
>
> >>
> >> Another line of evidence is the distribution of species in space (and
> >> time), which was in Darwin's day perhaps the most important line. Why do
> >> the deserts of the Americas have cacti, and the deserts of Africa
> >> cacti-mimicking spurges, and Madagascar Didiereas? Why do the Carnivora
> >> of Madagascar form a clade? Why does Australia have marsupial analogs to
> >> placental mammals found elsewhere? Why do oceanic islands have a biased
> >> subset of organisms?
> >
> > Asking me a bunch of questions tells me nothing. Why didn't you give me the answers and provide evidence to support what you say?
>
> You've got to be one of the most insufferable ignoramuses out there.

That doesn't tell me anything useful, either. You are one dumb asshole.

> He's asking rhetorical questions, we *know* the answers to all of those
> questions, even if you're too pig-headed to accept it. For example, why
> does Australia have marsupial analogs to placental mammals found
> elsewhere? Because of convergent evolution, which happens when two
> different sets of unrelated organisms evolve similar adaptations to the
> same or similar set of conditions in their respective environments. Why
> do most of the deserts of the Americas have cacti and the deserts of
> Africa don't? Because cacti evolved in the Americas, and the rise of
> cacti-like spurges is because of convergence. The cactus of Madagascar
> only got to Madagascar relatively recently by dispersal from the
> Americas by way of wind, floating across oceans, or bird shit. Why do
> oceanic islands have a biased subset of organisms, because islands are
> isolated and therefore only the wildlife of said islands consists only
> of what organisms are or were able to reach said islands etc etc etc.

Those are your explanations. After our previous conversations, I don't believe anything you say. You are a raving nutcase who makes wild assumptions and wild claims on the basis of zero evidence.
I wouldn't trust you to give me the right time.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 3:30:02 AM UTC-7, Joe Cummings wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:21:47 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-7, Meteorite Debris wrote:
> >> In article <d5ed63f0-80a0-40e7...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> vtand...@gmail.com says...
> >> >
> >> > Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
> >> >
> >> > We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
> >>
> >> Your problem V is that YOU were not there either. Neither have you
> >> studied palaeontology, biology, genetics, geology, taxonomy or a 100
> >> other fields which provide evidence for evolution.
> >
> >I did not say I knew how life developed. I said you don't have enough evidence to know, either.
>
> It might be pertinent to ask: what kind of evidence will convince you?
>
> You have a "thing" against evolution, and your favourite substances
> seem to be "garbage," and "bullshit."

When someone says something I consider to be nonsense, I call them as I see them.
I don't accept ID or Creationism, either. It's just that, since 1998, I have read lots of arguments and evidence that supposedly support evolution. None of them convinced me. I refuse to blindly accept evolution just because it happens to be the majority view.

>
> Yoou've made a number of points; let's see how weak they are.
>
> "You weren't there at the time." That' true, just as it's true that
> you weren't there at the time when your religion, whatever it is, was
> founded. Of course, you'll claim that there are written records of ghe
> events leading to the foundation of your religion. But are written
> records reliable?

The trouble with millions of years of evolution is that NOBODY was there at the time, jackass..No humans were there to observe it or make a record of it.

>
> They could be mistaken, badly copied or just plain lying.

There are ways of verifying historical accounts.You don't know much about the Historical Method. I recommend the wikipedia article on the subject.

>
> Look, I'll give you an exercise in exegesis: Exactly who went to the
> tomb of Jesus, who was there to greet them? Would yoiu say the record
> was true???

I'm a Jew.. We don't accept Jesus or the New Testament, so I don't give a shit.

>
> The evidence that is found in excavations is dumb; it can't lie, it
> has to be examined by people who have some knowledge of a number of
> disciplines- chemistry, physics and so on. In your innocence you
> think that there's a vast conspiracy of all the scientists to destroy
> religion. Evidence, please.

I never said any such thing.You are either a blatant liar or someone arrogant enough to think he can read minds.

>
> Perhaps you could give us your idea how life came about. Will you
> give us the results of your research into the question? That is, of
> course, if you've done any. And please, no "Handy Dandy Creation
> Refuter."
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings

I already told someone else in another post above that I don't know how life came about, nor do I claim to know. The difference between us is that I am honest enough to admit there are things I do not know. You are an arrogant, presumptuous bullshitter who
pretends to know most everything. This is your first communication with me and you have never met me, yet you claim you know what I am thinking. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

[Oxyaena]

So you resort to an ad hominem rather than actually attempt to refute what I wrote? You and Nyikos would get along *real* well.

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:19:42 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>> >
>> >We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>>
>>
>> Yes, fossilization is a rare event relative to all the organisms that
>> ever lived. That still provides lots of fossils on an absolute scale.
>>
>> Yes, there were far more species than were captured by the fossil
>> record.
>>
>> Yes, there isn't enough fossils to confirm "all our theories".
>>
>> No, there are enough fossils to confirm many of our theories.
>
>Garbage.
>
>People leave behind records when they die, but animals do not.
>Of all the species that ever lived, what per cent have left behind fossils to confirm that they ever existed? The reality is you cannot answer that question because you don't even know with certainty how many there were in total.
>
>Accepting the theory of evolution requires a leap of faith whose conclusion is not supported by any evidence.
>
>
>>
>> "Were you there?" is a stupid Creationist PRATT.
>
>I didn't say that.

You're pointlessly equivocating again. How is "nobody was there to
see it" functionally different?

>> Events from the past
>> leave behind evidence, which are found in the present. Denial of
>> evidence of the past leads to the absurd conclusion that God created
>> everything just before you read this post.
>
>I didn't say that, either.

Not only are you pointlessly equivocating, you're arguing against your
own argument. If you don't deny evidence of the past, then why is it
so important to you that somebody was there to see it? And even if
somebody was there to see it, how do you know what they say they saw,
except from the historical record they left behind?

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:19:42 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>> >
>> >We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>>
>>
>> Yes, fossilization is a rare event relative to all the organisms that
>> ever lived. That still provides lots of fossils on an absolute scale.
>>
>> Yes, there were far more species than were captured by the fossil
>> record.
>>
>> Yes, there isn't enough fossils to confirm "all our theories".
>>
>> No, there are enough fossils to confirm many of our theories.
>
>Garbage.

You're entitled to your opinion. And you know this how?

>People leave behind records when they die, but animals do not.

So you deny the existence of fossils.

>Of all the species that ever lived, what per cent have left behind fossils to confirm that they ever existed? The reality is you cannot answer that question because you don't even know with certainty how many there were in total.

Why is any percentage not sufficient for you?

>Accepting the theory of evolution requires a leap of faith whose conclusion is not supported by any evidence.

So you deny the existence of fossils because you deny evolution. Of
course, the fossil record isn't the only evidence of evolution.
Evolution has been observed. Look up Hawaiian silent crickets.

>> "Were you there?" is a stupid Creationist PRATT.
>
>I didn't say that.

You're pointlessly equivocating again. How is "nobody was there to
see it" functionally different?

> Events from the past
>> leave behind evidence, which are found in the present. Denial of
>> evidence of the past leads to the absurd conclusion that God created
>> everything just before you read this post.
>
>I didn't say that, either.

Not only are you pointlessly equivocating again, you're arguing

against your own argument. If you don't deny evidence of the past,
then why is it so important to you that somebody was there to see it?
And even if somebody was there to see it, how do you know what they

say they saw, except from the historical record they left behind? Your
posts have become incoherent.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:00:04 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> So you resort to an ad hominem rather than actually attempt to refute what I wrote? You and Nyikos would get along *real* well.

You are the one who posted this:" You've got to be one of the most insufferable ignoramuses out there. "

Hypocrite.

You simply cannot tolerate the fact that someone does not blindly accept everything you say.Your crass unnecessary insults and wild unsupported assumptions have ruined your credibility in my eyes.
You are unable to remain objective or focused long enough to discuss anything rationally.

The next time you pull that crap, I will killfile you.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:19:42 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
> >> >
> >> >We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, fossilization is a rare event relative to all the organisms that
> >> ever lived. That still provides lots of fossils on an absolute scale.
> >>
> >> Yes, there were far more species than were captured by the fossil
> >> record.
> >>
> >> Yes, there isn't enough fossils to confirm "all our theories".
> >>
> >> No, there are enough fossils to confirm many of our theories.
> >
> >Garbage.
> >
> >People leave behind records when they die, but animals do not.
> >Of all the species that ever lived, what per cent have left behind fossils to confirm that they ever existed? The reality is you cannot answer that question because you don't even know with certainty how many there were in total.
> >
> >Accepting the theory of evolution requires a leap of faith whose conclusion is not supported by any evidence.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "Were you there?" is a stupid Creationist PRATT.
> >
> >I didn't say that.
>
>
> You're pointlessly equivocating again. How is "nobody was there to
> see it" functionally different?

It's very different.You implied I am a Creationist and I am not.
The one I said is a statement of fact, while the crap you posted is a debater's trick used to intimidate the opposition.

>
>
> >> Events from the past
> >> leave behind evidence, which are found in the present. Denial of
> >> evidence of the past leads to the absurd conclusion that God created
> >> everything just before you read this post.
> >
> >I didn't say that, either.
>
>
> Not only are you pointlessly equivocating, you're arguing against your
> own argument. If you don't deny evidence of the past, then why is it
> so important to you that somebody was there to see it? And even if
> somebody was there to see it, how do you know what they say they saw,
> except from the historical record they left behind?

You can't read, jackass. I did not deny there is evidence from the past. What I said was the evidence is not sufficient to persuade me that evolution actually happened..
You are either a liar or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

[Oxyaena]

Your tone is inviting for insults, and you're the one who refuses to address what I wrote.

[Robert Camp]

On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>
> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.

I'm sorry, but your problem is not with evolution.


Your problems (in no particular order and likely not limited to) are with,

- epistemology: you don't understand the nature of knowledge, how we
come to know things, and the thresholds involved in levels of certainty;
either that or your application of these concepts is conveniently
misapplied (see hubris below).

- rhetoric: many of your posts in this thread demonstrate a lack of
understanding of the burdens of argument and proof, concentrating
instead upon defensiveness and attack.

- ideological hubris: giving you the benefit of the doubt, one has to
assume you don't bring the same level of contempt for expertise to -
e.g., your doctor's diagnoses, your lawyers counsel or your airline
pilot's skills - that your beliefs obviously prompt toward evolution.

- ignorance: even the minimal arguments you offer above display a
distinct lack of familiarity with the methodology of science in general
and the details of evolutionary biology in particular.



Frankly, you've got a long way to go before your misunderstandings
actually reach the theory and science of evolution.

[jillery]

GurgleGoops doesn't support killfiles, so that's an impotent threat.
Just sayin'.

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:29:17 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:


>> >> "Were you there?" is a stupid Creationist PRATT.
>> >
>> >I didn't say that.
>>
>>
>> You're pointlessly equivocating again. How is "nobody was there to
>> see it" functionally different?
>
>It's very different.You implied I am a Creationist and I am not.

To quote someone whom you hold in high regard, "I didn't say that". I
neither said nor implied you're a Creationist. Instead, you
incorrectly inferred it. Nor is my point based on your incorrect
inference. Instead, it's a point Creationists use, and others like
yourself, which has been refuted many times. That nobody was there is
meaningless truism. Past events leave evidence, from which they can
be deduced in the present. Not sure how you *still* don't get this.

>The one I said is a statement of fact,

Pedantically correct, but it's not relevant to the issue, the veracity
of the fossil record and evolution.

>while the crap you posted is a debater's trick used to intimidate the opposition.

Since I showed "the crap" to which you refer is not my point, but
instead is your stupid strawman, the master baiter here is you.

>> >> Events from the past
>> >> leave behind evidence, which are found in the present. Denial of
>> >> evidence of the past leads to the absurd conclusion that God created
>> >> everything just before you read this post.
>> >
>> >I didn't say that, either.
>>
>>
>> Not only are you pointlessly equivocating, you're arguing against your
>> own argument. If you don't deny evidence of the past, then why is it
>> so important to you that somebody was there to see it? And even if
>> somebody was there to see it, how do you know what they say they saw,
>> except from the historical record they left behind?
>
>You can't read, jackass. I did not deny there is evidence from the past. What I said was the evidence is not sufficient to persuade me that evolution actually happened..
>You are either a liar or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

To refresh again your convenient amnesia:

"nobody was there to see it"

I leave as an exercise who is the liar here.

[ed wolf]

While you might have a problem with evolution, evolution sure has no
problem with you.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.

That's not quite true. Science requires observations, but they do not
need to be direct observations, nor do they need to be observations of
the thing itself. The movement of tectonic plates, for example, was
accepted on the basis of a wide variety of other evidence before anybody
ever saw the plates move, and even then that observation was not done
directly by having an observer sit and stare at one spot for fifty
years, but by using satellite measurements.

> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody
> was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but
> fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to
> confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a
> few extinct species, but not for most of them.

Regarding fossils, we have more than enough to show conclusively that
life has changed a great deal over time; that when new life forms
appear, they are almost always similar to other life forms which have
existed at the same time or shortly before them; and that there is no
evidence at all for any sudden appearance of a life form. So if that
does not point to evolution, what the heck do you think it is evidence for?

And evidence for evolution goes far beyond fossils. There is also the
phylogenetic tree, which nobody can account for except by evolution.
Plus, yes, we have seen evolution happen. Some experiments have even
kept track of the specific genetic changes which occurred as bacteria
evolved in response to selective pressure. There's plenty more, too,
but any one of those three lines of evidence (fossils, phylogenetics,
and experimental evolution) are already enough to establish the theory
as factual.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Mark Isaak]

Actually, what Oxyaena just told you is potentially the most valuable
piece of information you will ever receive in your lifetime. I say
"potentially" because you will benefit nothing unless you accept the
fact that you are an insufferable ignoramus and decide to do something
positive about it.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/17/2018 8:19 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 3:30:02 AM UTC-7, Joe Cummings wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:21:47 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-7, Meteorite Debris wrote:
>>>> In article <d5ed63f0-80a0-40e7...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> vtand...@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem V is that YOU were not there either. Neither have you
>>>> studied palaeontology, biology, genetics, geology, taxonomy or a 100
>>>> other fields which provide evidence for evolution.
>>>
>>> I did not say I knew how life developed. I said you don't have enough evidence to know, either.
>>
>> It might be pertinent to ask: what kind of evidence will convince you?
>>
>> You have a "thing" against evolution, and your favourite substances
>> seem to be "garbage," and "bullshit."
>
> When someone says something I consider to be nonsense, I call them as I see them.
> I don't accept ID or Creationism, either. It's just that, since 1998, I have read lots of arguments and evidence that supposedly support evolution. None of them convinced me. I refuse to blindly accept evolution just because it happens to be the majority view.

You're full of shit. Never even once have you demonstrated anything
close to even understanding the *basics* of evolutionary theory.

>
>>
>> Yoou've made a number of points; let's see how weak they are.
>>
>> "You weren't there at the time." That' true, just as it's true that
>> you weren't there at the time when your religion, whatever it is, was
>> founded. Of course, you'll claim that there are written records of ghe
>> events leading to the foundation of your religion. But are written
>> records reliable?
>
>
> The trouble with millions of years of evolution is that NOBODY was there at the time, jackass..No humans were there to observe it or make a record of it.
>

When a detective goes to the scene of the murder no-one present was at
the scene when the murder took place, but the evidence left behind
allows the detective to construct a picture of what took place
previously. The same thing applies to evolution.

>>
>> They could be mistaken, badly copied or just plain lying.
>
> There are ways of verifying historical accounts.You don't know much about the Historical Method. I recommend the wikipedia article on the subject.
>>
>> Look, I'll give you an exercise in exegesis: Exactly who went to the
>> tomb of Jesus, who was there to greet them? Would yoiu say the record
>> was true???
>
> I'm a Jew.. We don't accept Jesus or the New Testament, so I don't give a shit.

So you are religious! Wow! Unsurprisingly you're a lying sack of shit as
usual, at one point you're exclaiming "I`m not religious" and the next
you're saying that you are. Go figure.

>>
>> The evidence that is found in excavations is dumb; it can't lie, it
>> has to be examined by people who have some knowledge of a number of
>> disciplines- chemistry, physics and so on. In your innocence you
>> think that there's a vast conspiracy of all the scientists to destroy
>> religion. Evidence, please.
>

> I never said any such thing.You are either a blatant liar or someone arrogant enough to think he can read ? minds.


Then why are you so adamantly against evolution? The TalkOrigins Archive
can answer *all* of your questions and more, and is only a click away:

http://talkorigins.org/

>
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps you could give us your idea how life came about. Will you
>> give us the results of your research into the question? That is, of
>> course, if you've done any. And please, no "Handy Dandy Creation
>> Refuter."
>>
>> Have fun,
>>
>> Joe Cummings
>
> I already told someone else in another post above that I don't know how life came about, nor do I claim to know. The difference between us is that I am honest enough to admit there are things I do not know. You are an arrogant, presumptuous bullshitter who
> pretends to know most everything. This is your first communication with me and you have never met me, yet you claim you know what I am thinking. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.
>
>

This whole post is literally boiling with psychological projection. Have
you ever met someone named Peter Nyikos?

[Joe Cummings]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 05:19:59 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 3:30:02 AM UTC-7, Joe Cummings wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:21:47 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-7, Meteorite Debris wrote:
>> >> In article <d5ed63f0-80a0-40e7...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> vtand...@gmail.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> > Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>> >> >
>> >> > We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>> >>
>> >> Your problem V is that YOU were not there either. Neither have you
>> >> studied palaeontology, biology, genetics, geology, taxonomy or a 100
>> >> other fields which provide evidence for evolution.
>> >
>> >I did not say I knew how life developed. I said you don't have enough evidence to know, either.
>>
>> It might be pertinent to ask: what kind of evidence will convince you?
>>
>> You have a "thing" against evolution, and your favourite substances
>> seem to be "garbage," and "bullshit."
>
> When someone says something I consider to be nonsense, I call them as I see them.

Well, of course. And it's a convenient way of avoiding a discussion.

Got it all of your chest, now? Mind you don't have an orgasm, it
could be messy.

I really recommend you to avoid using swearwords. I know that the
urge must be overwhelming for you, but try to engage in substantial
discussion if you are capable.

Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Oxyaena]

On 9/17/2018 9:29 AM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:10:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:19:42 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:31:35 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, fossilization is a rare event relative to all the organisms that
>>>> ever lived. That still provides lots of fossils on an absolute scale.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there were far more species than were captured by the fossil
>>>> record.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there isn't enough fossils to confirm "all our theories".
>>>>
>>>> No, there are enough fossils to confirm many of our theories.
>>>
>>> Garbage.
>>>
>>> People leave behind records when they die, but animals do not.
>>> Of all the species that ever lived, what per cent have left behind fossils to confirm that they ever existed? The reality is you cannot answer that question because you don't even know with certainty how many there were in total.
>>>
>>> Accepting the theory of evolution requires a leap of faith whose conclusion is not supported by any evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Were you there?" is a stupid Creationist PRATT.
>>>
>>> I didn't say that.
>>
>>
>> You're pointlessly equivocating again. How is "nobody was there to
>> see it" functionally different?
>
> It's very different.

A difference in wording doesn't amount to a difference in meaning, asshole.

> You implied I am a Creationist and I am not.

And yet in another post you said you were a Jew, saying "we don't
believe in Jesus and the New Testament." You're obviously religious
based off of what you had written.

> The one I said is a statement of fact, while the crap you posted is a debater's trick used to intimidate the opposition.
>>
>>
>>>> Events from the past
>>>> leave behind evidence, which are found in the present. Denial of
>>>> evidence of the past leads to the absurd conclusion that God created
>>>> everything just before you read this post.
>>>
>>> I didn't say that, either.
>>
>>
>> Not only are you pointlessly equivocating, you're arguing against your
>> own argument. If you don't deny evidence of the past, then why is it
>> so important to you that somebody was there to see it? And even if
>> somebody was there to see it, how do you know what they say they saw,
>> except from the historical record they left behind?
>
> You can't read, jackass.

You accuse me of being a nut and wildly insulting people. Look at this
post of yours.

>I did not deny there is evidence from the past. What I said was the
evidence is not sufficient to persuade me that evolution actually happened..

An argument from incredulity is no argument at all. Yes, evolution *has*
been observed in action, and fossils are hardly the only evidence for
evolution. Why do you think you get vaccinations every year? Because the
virus evolves countermeasures to the previous vaccinations, so therefore
a new vaccination is required every year to combat the newly evolved virus.

> You are either a liar or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
>
>

You're one of the biggest poster boys for Dunning-Kruger and
psychological projection out there. Go fuck yourself, you ignorant prick.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 00:20:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 12:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:

>> On 17/09/2018 07:48, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 9:40:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

>> >> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>> >>>
>> >>> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was
>> >>> there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is
>> >>> a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories
>> >>> of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for
>> >>> most of them.

>> >> That might be a problem if fossils were the sole evidence for evolution.

>> > Why don't you show me the other evidence?
>> > Do you know what it is?

>> Assuming that other people are ignorant just because you are is a
>> Dunning-Kruger thing to do.

>I didn't say anyone is ignorant. Putting words in someone's mouth is a very dishonest and stupid thing to do.You just reduced your credibility appreciably.

Actually, your question about John's knowledge ("Do you know
what it is?") implies exactly that.

>> You could of course read the Origin of the Species. Darwin adduced
>> enough evidence (most of which wasn't fossil) to convince most of his
>> contemporary biologists.
>
>I have read it. I did not convince me.

Your privilege.

>> One line of evidence is that pattern of similarities and differences
>> among animals. In Darwin's day that applied to nearly exclusively to
>> anatomical features (Darwin did note some behavioural traits.) Nowadays
>> we have a vast amount of genetic (and protein) sequence data to add to
>> the pile of evidence.
>
>That's too general. If you know the details, show me.

So, you're disinclined to search for knowledge, and desire
to be handed the equivalent of multiple degrees in a post in
Usenet? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. The "details", as
you put it, are available in college courses, especially at
the graduate level, and much of the info available in a
formal education is also available online for anyone with
the desire to learn. No one owes you a thing.

>> Another line of evidence is the distribution of species in space (and
>> time), which was in Darwin's day perhaps the most important line. Why do
>> the deserts of the Americas have cacti, and the deserts of Africa
>> cacti-mimicking spurges, and Madagascar Didiereas? Why do the Carnivora
>> of Madagascar form a clade? Why does Australia have marsupial analogs to
>> placental mammals found elsewhere? Why do oceanic islands have a biased
>> subset of organisms?

>Asking me a bunch of questions tells me nothing.

I suspect nothing anyone could write would "tell you
anything"; your mind is closed to all but your
preconceptions.

>Why didn't you give me the answers and provide evidence to support what you say?

Why don't you get off your dead ass and look for it? The
references are there in Ernest's post.

>All you gave me is bullshit.

You should recognize that; your posts consist of little
else.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 05:04:21 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

> You are a raving nutcase who makes wild assumptions and wild claims on the basis of zero evidence.

Nice mirror you got there. Be a shame if it got broke...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 08:37:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
<eduar...@gmx.net>:

>While you might have a problem with evolution, evolution sure has no
>problem with you.

You sure about that? I think it threw him out and left him
behind.

[ed wolf]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 8:00:03 PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 08:37:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
> <eduar...@gmx.net>:
>
> >While you might have a problem with evolution, evolution sure has no
> >problem with you.
>
> You sure about that? I think it threw him out and left him
> behind.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>

thats exactly what I call not having a problem with someone.
cheers
ed

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Why did you change the subject? Obviously, you could not answer my questions or deal with my remarks..
I will not respond to any further posts from you.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Translation:You don't know the specifics so you are making excuses. I doubt you will fool anyone

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Shit, asshole! Do you infect this place, too?

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:20:14 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:00:04 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> So you resort to an ad hominem rather than actually attempt to refute what I wrote? You and Nyikos would get along *real* well.
> >
> >You are the one who posted this:" You've got to be one of the most insufferable ignoramuses out there. "
> >
> >Hypocrite.
> >
> > You simply cannot tolerate the fact that someone does not blindly accept everything you say.Your crass unnecessary insults and wild unsupported assumptions have ruined your credibility in my eyes.
> >You are unable to remain objective or focused long enough to discuss anything rationally.
> >
> >The next time you pull that crap, I will killfile you.
>
>
> GurgleGoops doesn't support killfiles, so that's an impotent threat.
> Just sayin'.

Google allows me to hide the entire text of anyone's response so I don't see it.
>

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Why don't you explain things instead of just hinting at them?
You are a poor teacher and I don't know anymore now than I did before I read your post.I have serious doubts that you actually
know what you're talking about.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>
> That's not quite true. Science requires observations, but they do not
> need to be direct observations, nor do they need to be observations of
> the thing itself. The movement of tectonic plates, for example, was
> accepted on the basis of a wide variety of other evidence before anybody
> ever saw the plates move, and even then that observation was not done
> directly by having an observer sit and stare at one spot for fifty
> years, but by using satellite measurements.

The issue is evolution, not tectonic plates. Why don't you stay on topic?

>
> > We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody
> > was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but
> > fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to
> > confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a
> > few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>
> Regarding fossils, we have more than enough to show conclusively that
> life has changed a great deal over time; that when new life forms
> appear, they are almost always similar to other life forms which have
> existed at the same time or shortly before them; and that there is no
> evidence at all for any sudden appearance of a life form. So if that
> does not point to evolution, what the heck do you think it is evidence for?

Fossilization is a rare event.

What per cent of the total life forms that ever existed are represented by fossils? You cannot even answer that question.

A fossil of a worm does not establish the existence of anything but a worm.

>
> And evidence for evolution goes far beyond fossils. There is also the
> phylogenetic tree, which nobody can account for except by evolution.
> Plus, yes, we have seen evolution happen. Some experiments have even
> kept track of the specific genetic changes which occurred as bacteria
> evolved in response to selective pressure. There's plenty more, too,
> but any one of those three lines of evidence (fossils, phylogenetics,
> and experimental evolution) are already enough to establish the theory
> as factual.

That's the generally accepted party line, but I don't buy it.
I find the arguments and position of the dissenters more persuasive..Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon, a man who dealt with
live organisms, their development and their diseases every day.
He does not buy evolution and neither do many physicians I have spoken to.

[jillery]

That's news to me. Please explain how you identify to GG which
posters you don't want to see.

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>>
>> That's not quite true. Science requires observations, but they do not
>> need to be direct observations, nor do they need to be observations of
>> the thing itself. The movement of tectonic plates, for example, was
>> accepted on the basis of a wide variety of other evidence before anybody
>> ever saw the plates move, and even then that observation was not done
>> directly by having an observer sit and stare at one spot for fifty
>> years, but by using satellite measurements.
>
>The issue is evolution, not tectonic plates. Why don't you stay on topic?

You said above the topic is about science. Why do you think plate
tectonics isn't science?

>> > We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody
>> > was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but
>> > fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to
>> > confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a
>> > few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>>
>> Regarding fossils, we have more than enough to show conclusively that
>> life has changed a great deal over time; that when new life forms
>> appear, they are almost always similar to other life forms which have
>> existed at the same time or shortly before them; and that there is no
>> evidence at all for any sudden appearance of a life form. So if that
>> does not point to evolution, what the heck do you think it is evidence for?
>
>Fossilization is a rare event.

As I noted previously, fossilization is rare only relative to the
total number of living organisms.

>What per cent of the total life forms that ever existed are represented by fossils? You cannot even answer that question.

As I asked you previously, why isn't any percentage sufficient?

>A fossil of a worm does not establish the existence of anything but a worm.

A pedantic truism. Are you not aware there are fossils of others
organisms besides worms?

>> And evidence for evolution goes far beyond fossils. There is also the
>> phylogenetic tree, which nobody can account for except by evolution.
>> Plus, yes, we have seen evolution happen. Some experiments have even
>> kept track of the specific genetic changes which occurred as bacteria
>> evolved in response to selective pressure. There's plenty more, too,
>> but any one of those three lines of evidence (fossils, phylogenetics,
>> and experimental evolution) are already enough to establish the theory
>> as factual.
>
>That's the generally accepted party line, but I don't buy it.
>I find the arguments and position of the dissenters more persuasive..Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon, a man who dealt with
>live organisms, their development and their diseases every day.
>He does not buy evolution and neither do many physicians I have spoken to.

And how 'bout them Mets.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

If you assholes insult me, I will retaliate. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, you fucking crybaby.

>
> >I did not deny there is evidence from the past. What I said was the
> evidence is not sufficient to persuade me that evolution actually happened..
>
>
> An argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

I didn't say I was incredible. I said I am not persuaded by the evidence I have seen. Most of the people who have tried to pressure me to accept evolution have been as incoherent and
ineffective as you are.

Yes, evolution *has*
> been observed in action, and fossils are hardly the only evidence for
> evolution. Why do you think you get vaccinations every year? Because the
> virus evolves countermeasures to the previous vaccinations, so therefore
> a new vaccination is required every year to combat the newly evolved virus.

That's not true at all.. Viruses like the swine flu and SARS have been fought to a standstill, only to come back later. The virus we vaccinate against this year is often the same old virus we fought against years ago. If what you say were true, nobody would keep vaccines in stock, since they would no longer be effective.

>
>
> > You are either a liar or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
> >
> >
>
> You're one of the biggest poster boys for Dunning-Kruger and
> psychological projection out there. Go fuck yourself, you ignorant prick.

Since you have made a Psychiatric diagnosis, tell us what your professional qualifications as a Psychiatrist are. Failing that, you have proven yourself to be a pretentious fraud..

[Mark Isaak]

You really should learn something about what you are talking about
before you talk about it. Viruses evolve. That's why vaccines which
work one year do not work the next (not the only reason, but the major one).

There are at least two reasons to keep old vaccines in stock. One is
that just because one virus evolves does not mean they all do, so the
old vaccine still works on the old virus. A second is that an imperfect
vaccine, not entirely effective against the slightly evolved virus but
still somewhat effective, is better than nothing.

[Mark Isaak]

To what end? You don't want to know about any of this stuff anyway, or
you would devote your time to study instead of showing off how rude you are.

> You are a poor teacher and I don't know anymore now than I did
> before I read your post.I have serious doubts that you actually
> know what you're talking about.

Thank you. I'm glad that I taught you enough that you had to put
substantial effort into pretending it doesn't exist.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/17/18 5:44 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>>
>> That's not quite true. Science requires observations, but they do not
>> need to be direct observations, nor do they need to be observations of
>> the thing itself. The movement of tectonic plates, for example, was
>> accepted on the basis of a wide variety of other evidence before anybody
>> ever saw the plates move, and even then that observation was not done
>> directly by having an observer sit and stare at one spot for fifty
>> years, but by using satellite measurements.
>
> The issue is evolution, not tectonic plates. Why don't you stay on topic?

No, the issue is your rejection of reality in general.

>>> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody
>>> was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but
>>> fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to
>>> confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a
>>> few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>>
>> Regarding fossils, we have more than enough to show conclusively that
>> life has changed a great deal over time; that when new life forms
>> appear, they are almost always similar to other life forms which have
>> existed at the same time or shortly before them; and that there is no
>> evidence at all for any sudden appearance of a life form. So if that
>> does not point to evolution, what the heck do you think it is evidence for?
>
> Fossilization is a rare event.
>
> What per cent of the total life forms that ever existed are
> represented by fossils? You cannot even answer that question.

Don't need to. If your factory produces ten million widgets, your
quality control department does not need to look at all ten million to
see how the output varies. A sample of just thirty or so would do.
Granted, life forms vary more than widgets, but then again we have a
heck of a lot more than thirty fossils, too.

Face the truth. Fossils show evolution. You are free to deny what you
yourself see, but don't ask me to deny my own eyes as well.

> A fossil of a worm does not establish the existence of anything but a worm.

So what do fossils of a thousand recognizably different varieties of
worms establish?

>> And evidence for evolution goes far beyond fossils. There is also the
>> phylogenetic tree, which nobody can account for except by evolution.
>> Plus, yes, we have seen evolution happen. Some experiments have even
>> kept track of the specific genetic changes which occurred as bacteria
>> evolved in response to selective pressure. There's plenty more, too,
>> but any one of those three lines of evidence (fossils, phylogenetics,
>> and experimental evolution) are already enough to establish the theory
>> as factual.
>
> That's the generally accepted party line, but I don't buy it.
> I find the arguments and position of the dissenters more persuasive.

> Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon, a man who dealt with
> live organisms, their development and their diseases every day.
> He does not buy evolution and neither do many physicians I have spoken to.

Ben Carson is about the worst authority one could appeal to. As a
Republican politician, he has chosen to abandon God and reality in favor
of whatever the Party decrees, and as a member of the Trump
administration, it is his job to lie as much as possible.

[Oxyaena]

Still not a true killfile.



>>
>

[Oxyaena]

You are bringing the insults on yourself, if you were more cordial
towards folks and a lot less aggressive and confrontational, as well as
more open-minded, we wouldn't insult you. Think for a moment, sir, think!

>>
>> >I did not deny there is evidence from the past. What I said was the
>> evidence is not sufficient to persuade me that evolution actually happened..
>>
>>
>> An argument from incredulity is no argument at all.
>
> I didn't say I was incredible. I said I am not persuaded by the evidence I have seen. Most of the people who have tried to pressure me to accept evolution have been as incoherent and
> ineffective as you are.
>
>
> Yes, evolution *has*
>> been observed in action, and fossils are hardly the only evidence for
>> evolution. Why do you think you get vaccinations every year? Because the
>> virus evolves countermeasures to the previous vaccinations, so therefore
>> a new vaccination is required every year to combat the newly evolved virus.
>
> That's not true at all.. Viruses like the swine flu and SARS have been fought to a standstill, only to come back later. The virus we vaccinate against this year is often the same old virus we fought against years ago. If what you say were true, nobody would keep vaccines in stock, since they would no longer be effective.

Then why do we need new vaccinations every year? Because the virus
evolves. Mark already gave a good explanation so I won't discuss this in
depth, but you *really* need to learn more about evolution before
pontificating about it, since you obviously have no clue what you're
talking about.

How do you explain the rise of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic
bacteria? I can explain it. Evolution by natural selection. The
antibiotics wiped out most of the pathogens, but the few that survived
developed a resistance to antibiotics and then the allele for antibiotic
resistance spread throughout the pathogenic population, by way of
horizontal gene transfer and budding, the antibiotic resistant pathogens
quickly out-competed the non-antibiotic resistant pathogens, this is how
evolution (at its most basic) works, a beneficial mutation arises and
the organism possessing that beneficial mutation has a better chance of
reproducing and not seeing its lineage die out, while the organisms
without the beneficial mutation quickly die off.



[snip mindless bullshit]



>
>

[Oxyaena]

On 9/17/2018 9:48 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:29:18 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:20:14 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:00:04 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>> So you resort to an ad hominem rather than actually attempt to refute what I wrote? You and Nyikos would get along *real* well.
>>>>
>>>> You are the one who posted this:" You've got to be one of the most insufferable ignoramuses out there. "
>>>>
>>>> Hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>> You simply cannot tolerate the fact that someone does not blindly accept everything you say.Your crass unnecessary insults and wild unsupported assumptions have ruined your credibility in my eyes.
>>>> You are unable to remain objective or focused long enough to discuss anything rationally.
>>>>
>>>> The next time you pull that crap, I will killfile you.
>>>
>>>
>>> GurgleGoops doesn't support killfiles, so that's an impotent threat.
>>> Just sayin'.
>>
>> Google allows me to hide the entire text of anyone's response so I don't see it.
>
>
> That's news to me. Please explain how you identify to GG which
> posters you don't want to see.

I occasionally check Usenet by way of GG when not at my laptop, and
sometimes post using it when not at my laptop, and GG allows one to mark
a post as "spam" and it is therefore "hidden" (in reality all you need
to do is click on the post that says "marked for abuse by user" and read
it, it's really inconvenient because it applies to all people on GG when
someone marks a post as "abusive"). It's not in any way a filter though,
you have to manually do it each time.

[Oxyaena]

Translation: I`m a willfully ignorant fucktard and am proud of it!

We've explained the specifics to you multiple times. If you were capable
of reading you'd see this.

[Oxyaena]

Troll alert.

[Oxyaena]

He didn't, he was pointing out the obvious.

> Obviously, you could not answer my questions or deal with my remarks..

Obviously you refuse to actually read what we have to say, and I doubt
you've gone to the website I cited:

http://talkorigins.org/

It will answer *all* of your questions on evolution and more, provided
you're willing to learn.

> I will not respond to any further posts from you.
>
>

Obviously you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[Oxyaena]

*Groan* The TalkOrigins Archive is your friend:

http://talkorigins.org/

What, is it too hard to click on a link?

[Oxyaena]

There's no "party line", only evidence, and what Mark wrote above is
what the evidence says. You have a right to be wrong, just as we've got
the right to point out to you that you're wrong. Once again, an argument

from incredulity is no argument at all

(https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity).

> I find the arguments and position of the dissenters more persuasive..Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon, a man who dealt with
> live organisms, their development and their diseases every day.

Ben Carson wasn't a biologist, he was a neurosurgeon, his field of study
never required *any* knowledge about evolution, and if you find the man
that thinks the Pyramids of Giza were used to store grain, then the
problem's with YOU, not us.

> He does not buy evolution and neither do many physicians I have spoken to.

Because physicians *aren't* biologists, dipshit, how many times do we
have to tell you this. An argument from authority is no argument at all
(https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). All that
matters is the evidence, and the evidence is in favor of evolution.


>


--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in
it or not." - Niel Degrasse Tyson

[jillery]

Here's a short 2-minute video of Ben Carson preaching his anti-science
sermon to the choir:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvtlujHBrpc>

I would bet good money that V won't state in his own words which of
Ben Carson's "arguments and positions" he finds persuasive and why.

[Oxyaena]

Yeah, no thanks, I have to deal with enough political bullshit as it is
with Drumpf as POTUS.

>
> I would bet good money that V won't state in his own words which of
> Ben Carson's "arguments and positions" he finds persuasive and why.

Out of curiosity, exactly how much would you be willing to bet? V likes
to play word games as Nyikos likes to do, but is nowhere near as skilled
as Nyikos is when it comes to verbal acrobatics. The rare day where I
give Nyikos praise, but mostly in a "Pretender Diss" sort of way.

V ought to take some lessons from Nyikos sometime as how to wiggle one's
way out of a tight squeeze when confronted over something they said, a
la Nyikos shifting the goalposts to try to avoid confronting the
dishonesty of him alleging that "atheists are trying to stop people from
learning about abiogenesis".

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

[vtand...@gmail.com]

He is not "anti-science" and never said he is. He merely said he finds many elements of the theory of evolution hard for him to accept because they don't seem logical to him.. That is very similar to my feelings on the subject. Obviously, if he went to
medical school and practices as a physician, he believes in science. If he didn't believe in science, he would practice faith healing instead.

I always find disturbing the habit of people like you of distorting and vilifying anyone who disagrees with you..
I'll bet you are an atheist, They display that rabid intolerance.
That sort of thinking is anathema to democracy and does not belong in the United States.

[jillery]

It's obvious you didn't bother to listen to a 2-minute video. Here's
some of what Carson said, from the transcript:
*******************************
The quote scientific community says that something came from nothing.
There was nothing. There certainly, there was something. And then
even more astonishment, that something then exploded and everything
came into perfect order. You know our, our solar system is so
precise, we can predict 70 years hence when a comet is coming. That's,
that's incredible precision. Our earth spinning on its axis, at
exactly the right tilt, by the right distance from the Sun. I mean,
and that all of this just happened. Now these same scientists, quote
scientists, believe in the laws of thermodynamics. The second law of
thermodynamics is entropy, which indicates that things tend to
naturally move toward a state of disorganization. So you're saying
there's a big bang and everything becomes perfectly organized. Now
that requires a lot of faith, a lot more faith than I have.
**************************************

What part of "scientific community" do you not understand?

What part of the above has anything to do with evolution?

What part of the above sounds acceptable to you?

The only person here distorting and vilifying and showing their rabid
intolerance is you.

[zencycle]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 8:45:02 PM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> The issue is evolution, not tectonic plates. Why don't you stay on topic?
> >

Evolution is process. Tectonic shift is a selection pressure in that process, its' consideration is indeed on-topic

> Fossilization is a rare event.

So?

>
> What per cent of the total life forms that ever existed are represented by fossils? You cannot even answer that question.

It's largely irrelevant with regards to the discussion of evolution.

> A fossil of a worm does not establish the existence of anything but a worm.

And descendant forms of worms establish the existence of descendant worms.

> >
> > And evidence for evolution goes far beyond fossils. There is also the
> > phylogenetic tree, which nobody can account for except by evolution.
> > Plus, yes, we have seen evolution happen. Some experiments have even
> > kept track of the specific genetic changes which occurred as bacteria
> > evolved in response to selective pressure. There's plenty more, too,
> > but any one of those three lines of evidence (fossils, phylogenetics,
> > and experimental evolution) are already enough to establish the theory
> > as factual.
>
> That's the generally accepted party line, but I don't buy it.
> I find the arguments and position of the dissenters more persuasive.

OK, you've made up your mind. Then why are you here?

> Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon,

Ben carson is an idiot savant who has no business talking about anything but neurosurgery.

> a man who dealt with
> live organisms, their development and their diseases every day.
> He does not buy evolution and neither do many physicians I have spoken to.

1) complete bullshit. There is a minority of creationist actual MDs, but they are few and far between. Unless you went specifically looking for one, a random chance of finding one is a bit rare.

2) we have established that you've made up your mind, so it's obvious that you're only purpose here is to troll. If you were actually interested in an exchange of ideas - whether to confirm your bias, try to convince others of your position, or the outside chance that you are legitimately looking for information that could change your mind - you would review the materials and engage in topical discourse.

Well, slow stan*, I've made up my mind as well. You're a waste of time, energy, bandwidth, and breathable air, and I've wasted 5 minutes of my life writing this.

My advice to anyone else reading this is not to feed the obvious troll.

You won't hear from me again.

* you're another stanfast sock puppet

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 8:05:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/17/18 5:44 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
> >>
> >> That's not quite true. Science requires observations, but they do not
> >> need to be direct observations, nor do they need to be observations of
> >> the thing itself. The movement of tectonic plates, for example, was
> >> accepted on the basis of a wide variety of other evidence before anybody
> >> ever saw the plates move, and even then that observation was not done
> >> directly by having an observer sit and stare at one spot for fifty
> >> years, but by using satellite measurements.
> >
> > The issue is evolution, not tectonic plates. Why don't you stay on topic?
>
> No, the issue is your rejection of reality in general.

In your irrational reality, reptiles grow feathers, life pops out of soup, collagen can survive 70 million years. You are a mathematically incompetent pseudo-scientist whose stupidity contributes to drug-resistant infection, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. Your stupidity harms people.

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 5:55:02 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, exactly how much would you be willing to bet? V likes
> to play word games as Nyikos likes to do, but is nowhere near as skilled
> as Nyikos is when it comes to verbal acrobatics.

Which is pretty sad, because peter isn't that good at it either - or else we wouldn't keep catching him at it.

> The rare day where I
> give Nyikos praise, but mostly in a "Pretender Diss" sort of way.

Yes, backhanded compliment noted.

>
> V ought to take some lessons from Nyikos sometime as how to wiggle one's
> way out of a tight squeeze when confronted over something they said, a
> la Nyikos shifting the goalposts to try to avoid confronting the
> dishonesty of him alleging that "atheists are trying to stop people from
> learning about abiogenesis".

Did you catch this exchange on the Dawkins thread?

me - Are you seriously going to make an argument that "atheists were trying to *keep* people *from* thinking about abiogenesis" is different than "atheists [are] trying to get people not to think about abiogenesis" ?

Peter - Yes, but I'd rather go into that later because we could be hit here
by tropical storm force winds and power outages

Unfortunately for this group, this vtand troll is about as bright as alphbeta, but with more hate.

[Joe Cummings]

When V lifts heimself out of his beloved excrement and starts putting
a rational argument together, will someoneplease alert me? Thanks


Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 12:20:03 PM UTC-4, Joe Cummings wrote:

>
> When V lifts heimself out of his beloved excrement and starts putting
> a rational argument together, will someoneplease alert me? Thanks

Don't hold your breath......








>
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You don't have any rational arguments for reptiles growing feathers and life popping out of soup. You have only speculations and gross over-extrapolations. When are you in the reptiles grow feathers crowd going to learn how rmns works?
>
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings

[Joe Cummings]

You don't think reptile scales aren't precursors of feathers?

Wow, Tell me more.

JC
>>
>> Have fun,
>>
>> Joe Cummings

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 10:15:03 AM UTC-7, Joe Cummings wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:04:01 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Let's start with the multiplication rule of probabilities. You do know what that is? It's the reason that combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. Of course, you don't think this mathematical axiom applies to a reptile lineage accumulating the mutations required to transform the genes and control modules that make scales into those which would create feathers.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:08:06 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
<eduar...@gmx.net>:

>On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 8:00:03 PM UTC+2, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 08:37:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
>> <eduar...@gmx.net>:
>>
>> >While you might have a problem with evolution, evolution sure has no
>> >problem with you.
>>
>> You sure about that? I think it threw him out and left him
>> behind.

>thats exactly what I call not having a problem with someone.
>cheers

Point. OK; works for me.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:06:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 00:20:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>>
>> >On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 12:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>> >> On 17/09/2018 07:48, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>

>> >> > On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 9:40:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was
>> >> >>> there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is
>> >> >>> a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories
>> >> >>> of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for
>> >> >>> most of them.
>>

Translation: Any posts, the content of which you dislike,
are "excuses".

I do indeed know many of them, and I'm only a lowly EE. The
difference between us (other than the fact that I got a
college education) is that I've been interested enough in
the subject to learn.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:33:00 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>>

>> That's not quite true. Science requires observations, but they do not
>> need to be direct observations, nor do they need to be observations of
>> the thing itself. The movement of tectonic plates, for example, was
>> accepted on the basis of a wide variety of other evidence before anybody
>> ever saw the plates move, and even then that observation was not done
>> directly by having an observer sit and stare at one spot for fifty
>> years, but by using satellite measurements.
>>

>> > We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody
>> > was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but
>> > fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to
>> > confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a
>> > few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>>

>> Regarding fossils, we have more than enough to show conclusively that
>> life has changed a great deal over time; that when new life forms
>> appear, they are almost always similar to other life forms which have
>> existed at the same time or shortly before them; and that there is no
>> evidence at all for any sudden appearance of a life form. So if that
>> does not point to evolution, what the heck do you think it is evidence for?
>>

>> And evidence for evolution goes far beyond fossils. There is also the
>> phylogenetic tree, which nobody can account for except by evolution.
>> Plus, yes, we have seen evolution happen. Some experiments have even
>> kept track of the specific genetic changes which occurred as bacteria
>> evolved in response to selective pressure. There's plenty more, too,
>> but any one of those three lines of evidence (fossils, phylogenetics,
>> and experimental evolution) are already enough to establish the theory
>> as factual.

>Why don't you explain things instead of just hinting at them?

Why don't you get off your dead as and follow those "hints"?
Don't know how to do a keyword/keyphrase search? Tough.

>You are a poor teacher and I don't know anymore now than I did before I read your post.I have serious doubts that you actually
>know what you're talking about.

Hint: The problem is not with his post. And, as noted
previously, no one owes you an education.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You weren't interested enough in your two courses in statistics. Go back and study the subject and then maybe you be able to learn something about how evolution works.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>>

>> That's not quite true. Science requires observations, but they do not
>> need to be direct observations, nor do they need to be observations of
>> the thing itself. The movement of tectonic plates, for example, was
>> accepted on the basis of a wide variety of other evidence before anybody
>> ever saw the plates move, and even then that observation was not done
>> directly by having an observer sit and stare at one spot for fifty
>> years, but by using satellite measurements.
>

>The issue is evolution, not tectonic plates. Why don't you stay on topic?

The issue is how we know things we haven't directly
observed. HTH.

>> > We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody
>> > was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but
>> > fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to
>> > confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a
>> > few extinct species, but not for most of them.
>>

>> Regarding fossils, we have more than enough to show conclusively that
>> life has changed a great deal over time; that when new life forms
>> appear, they are almost always similar to other life forms which have
>> existed at the same time or shortly before them; and that there is no
>> evidence at all for any sudden appearance of a life form. So if that
>> does not point to evolution, what the heck do you think it is evidence for?
>

>Fossilization is a rare event.

True, and irrelevant.

>What per cent of the total life forms that ever existed are represented by fossils? You cannot even answer that question.

Please show why the exact number is important.

>A fossil of a worm does not establish the existence of anything but a worm.

Worms don't generally leave fossils, other than of their
tracks.

>> And evidence for evolution goes far beyond fossils. There is also the
>> phylogenetic tree, which nobody can account for except by evolution.
>> Plus, yes, we have seen evolution happen. Some experiments have even
>> kept track of the specific genetic changes which occurred as bacteria
>> evolved in response to selective pressure. There's plenty more, too,
>> but any one of those three lines of evidence (fossils, phylogenetics,
>> and experimental evolution) are already enough to establish the theory
>> as factual.
>

>That's the generally accepted party line, but I don't buy it.

Your privilege. BTW, your acceptance of things you know
nothing about, and which you refuse to learn about, is also
irrelevant.

>I find the arguments and position of the dissenters more persuasive..Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon, a man who dealt with

>live organisms, their development and their diseases every day.
>He does not buy evolution and neither do many physicians I have spoken to.

Assuming that is true (something I'm not prepared to accept
on only your word), most physicians, even though very well
educated about the human body, aren't scientists; they're
essentially mechanics (or engineers) dealing with biological
systems instead of mechanical or electronic ones. You
*almost* might as well ask the tech at JiffyLube for his
opinion.

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-4, Joe Cummings wrote:
>
> You don't think reptile scales aren't precursors of feathers?
>
> Wow, Tell me more.
>

Don't waste your time, Joe. doctordoctor littleman is a failed researcher who doesn't understand his own math, and his frustration with his horribly wasted existence has manifested by devolving into an ethical state that's a cross between and angry chimp and bernie madoff.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 04:21:40 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
<oxy...@the.last.king.of.scotland>:

Nah; trolls are assholes, but they're usually *clever*
assholes, and they're almost never sincere. I think this
idiot *is* sincere, and it's certainly not very clever.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/18/2018 12:13 PM, zencycle wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 5:55:02 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>>
>> Out of curiosity, exactly how much would you be willing to bet? V likes
>> to play word games as Nyikos likes to do, but is nowhere near as skilled
>> as Nyikos is when it comes to verbal acrobatics.
>
> Which is pretty sad, because peter isn't that good at it either - or else we wouldn't keep catching him at it.
>
>
>> The rare day where I
>> give Nyikos praise, but mostly in a "Pretender Diss" sort of way.
>
> Yes, backhanded compliment noted.

Like in the "V isn't nearly as 'good' of a troll as Peter is" sort of way.

>
>>
>> V ought to take some lessons from Nyikos sometime as how to wiggle one's
>> way out of a tight squeeze when confronted over something they said, a
>> la Nyikos shifting the goalposts to try to avoid confronting the
>> dishonesty of him alleging that "atheists are trying to stop people from
>> learning about abiogenesis".
>
> Did you catch this exchange on the Dawkins thread?
>
> me - Are you seriously going to make an argument that "atheists were trying to *keep* people *from* thinking about abiogenesis" is different than "atheists [are] trying to get people not to think about abiogenesis" ?

Yes, I read that whole exchange, and responded with some good
information several times during it, which Peter predictably ignored.

>
> Peter - Yes, but I'd rather go into that later because we could be hit here
> by tropical storm force winds and power outages
>
> Unfortunately for this group, this vtand troll is about as bright as alphbeta, but with more hate.
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:04:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

ztupid, you learn anything about the Grignard reaction yet? You better if you want to think that metals catalyzed the primordial soup so life could pop out. Or are you just going to remain ztupid?

[vtand...@gmail.com]

That's not what he said. Why are you changing the subject?
>

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 8:30:04 AM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 8:45:02 PM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > The issue is evolution, not tectonic plates. Why don't you stay on topic?
> > >
>
> Evolution is process. Tectonic shift is a selection pressure in that process, its' consideration is indeed on-topic
>
> > Fossilization is a rare event.
>
> So?
>
> >
> > What per cent of the total life forms that ever existed are represented by fossils? You cannot even answer that question.
>
> It's largely irrelevant with regards to the discussion of evolution.
>
> > A fossil of a worm does not establish the existence of anything but a worm.
>
> And descendant forms of worms establish the existence of descendant worms.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > And evidence for evolution goes far beyond fossils. There is also the
> > > phylogenetic tree, which nobody can account for except by evolution.
> > > Plus, yes, we have seen evolution happen. Some experiments have even
> > > kept track of the specific genetic changes which occurred as bacteria
> > > evolved in response to selective pressure. There's plenty more, too,
> > > but any one of those three lines of evidence (fossils, phylogenetics,
> > > and experimental evolution) are already enough to establish the theory
> > > as factual.
> >
> > That's the generally accepted party line, but I don't buy it.
> > I find the arguments and position of the dissenters more persuasive.
>
> OK, you've made up your mind. Then why are you here?

To express my opinion and discuss the topic.

>
>
> > Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon,
>
> Ben carson is an idiot savant who has no business talking about anything but neurosurgery.

The medical schools who graduated him do not agree.

>
> > a man who dealt with
> > live organisms, their development and their diseases every day.
> > He does not buy evolution and neither do many physicians I have spoken to.
>
> 1) complete bullshit. There is a minority of creationist actual MDs, but they are few and far between. Unless you went specifically looking for one, a random chance of finding one is a bit rare.

WRONG.Carson is not a Creationist.. He has made that clear.He does not believe in Young Earth. Several physicians I talked to also have doubts about evolution.

>
> 2) we have established that you've made up your mind,

Established as far as who is concerned?
I have reached the tentative conclusion that the evidence for the theory of evolution does not persuade me. I am willing to discuss it. If I do not budge from that position, it is only because the people who post here are unable to persuade me that I am wrong. The "arguments" they have presented to me so far are so full of distortions, irrelevancies, insults, incomplete explanations and incoherent nonsense that the only thing I have learned here is that I don't trust any of them to tell the truth and I seriously doubt they really know anything about evolution other than the fact that it is the majority view.

I know from experience that most people say they accept evolution only because the majority says it is true. That's not good enough for me.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>WRONG.Carson is not a Creationist.. He has made that clear.He does not believe in Young Earth. Several physicians I talked to also have doubts about evolution.

WRONG. Carson is definitely a Creationist. You can say that only
because you practice the same dishonest 3monkeys tactic as your
strange bedfellows.

FYI there are different kinds of Creationists, and some of them reject
the concept of a Young Earth. You would know this if you had any idea

what you're talking about.

Here's another video of Carson spewing his Creationist sermon to the
choir:


<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDIriIhbIM>

*********************************
@39:25 You know, people try to disparage the Bible, say that these
things are not true, these are fanciful tales. And yet, there's
abundant evidence, geological evidence, that there was a world-wide
flood.
**********************************

I know of no non-Creationist who believes in a literal interpretation
of Noah's Flood. Do you?

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/18/18 8:54 AM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 8:05:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/17/18 5:44 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 9/16/18 8:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
>>>>
>>>> That's not quite true. Science requires observations, but they do not
>>>> need to be direct observations, nor do they need to be observations of
>>>> the thing itself. The movement of tectonic plates, for example, was
>>>> accepted on the basis of a wide variety of other evidence before anybody
>>>> ever saw the plates move, and even then that observation was not done
>>>> directly by having an observer sit and stare at one spot for fifty
>>>> years, but by using satellite measurements.
>>>
>>> The issue is evolution, not tectonic plates. Why don't you stay on topic?
>>
>> No, the issue is your rejection of reality in general.
> In your irrational reality, reptiles grow feathers, life pops out of soup, collagen can survive 70 million years. You are a mathematically incompetent pseudo-scientist whose stupidity contributes to drug-resistant infection, herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments. Your stupidity harms people.

Alan likes to play with strawmen. I wonder if that has any connection
to the fact that he knows nothing about sex and so never includes it in
his calculations.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/18/18 1:01 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I know from experience that most people say they accept evolution only because the majority says it is true. That's not good enough for me.

And yet you trust what documented habitual liars say about economics.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Mark seems to think that recombination has some kind of important effect on rmns. That is understandable because Mark doesn't understand the mathematics or empirical evidence. If he did understand this, he would know why recombination does not affect the evolution of resistance for hiv. If he wants to understand the mathematical explanation, he can find it here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25645658

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3:20:02 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/18/18 1:01 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I know from experience that most people say they accept evolution only because the majority says it is true. That's not good enough for me.
>
> And yet you trust what documented habitual liars say about economics.
>

EVIDENCE???????????????????????????

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Even in your video, Carson did not say he is a Creationist. He did not mention the biblical Book of Genesis, which contains the Creation story. Have you ever read Genesis? That's where you stupid evolutionists fail, by equating Creationism with Intelligent Design and the two are NOT the same.

In this video, Carson explains his objections to Darwinist evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVKBlPZiGM

I agree with him that something as intricate and complex as the Human Genome could not have happened by pure random chance and the same applies to the human brain..

I'm sick and tired of your insults and wild ranting with conclusions that are not supported by evidence.. I will no longer read your posts.

[Mark Isaak]

"Recombination favors the evolution of drug resistance in HIV-1 during
antiretroviral therapy"
Antonio Carvajal-Rodríguez, Keith A. Crandall, and David Posada
_Infection, Genetics and Evolution_ 2007 Jul; 7(4): 476–483.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2041866/ (full article)

Oddly enough, they do not cite Kleinman.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 18:35:29 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >WRONG.Carson is not a Creationist.. He has made that clear.He does not believe in Young Earth. Several physicians I talked to also have doubts about evolution.
>>
>>
>> WRONG. Carson is definitely a Creationist. You can say that only
>> because you practice the same dishonest 3monkeys tactic as your
>> strange bedfellows.
>>
>> FYI there are different kinds of Creationists, and some of them reject
>> the concept of a Young Earth. You would know this if you had any idea
>> what you're talking about.
>>
>> Here's another video of Carson spewing his Creationist sermon to the
>> choir:
>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDIriIhbIM>
>>
>> *********************************
>> @39:25 You know, people try to disparage the Bible, say that these
>> things are not true, these are fanciful tales. And yet, there's
>> abundant evidence, geological evidence, that there was a world-wide
>> flood.
>> **********************************
>>
>> I know of no non-Creationist who believes in a literal interpretation
>> of Noah's Flood. Do you?
>>
>

>Even in your video, Carson did not say he is a Creationist.

That stupid argument again. I didn't say Carson said he's a

Creationist.


>He did not mention the biblical Book of Genesis, which contains the Creation story.

Of course he did. Don't you know that Noah's Flood is part of Genesis?

>Have you ever read Genesis?

Have you?

>That's where you stupid evolutionists fail, by equating Creationism with Intelligent Design and the two are NOT the same.

That's where you stupid trolls fail, by having no idea what you're
talking about. YOU are the one who claimed Carson isn't a
Creationist. I provided two videos of Carson himself preaching
Creationist dogma (there's plenty more). I made no mention of ID.
You're just making up crap because you know you have nothing
intelligent to say.

>In this video, Carson explains his objections to Darwinist evolution.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVKBlPZiGM
>
>I agree with him that something as intricate and complex as the Human Genome could not have happened by pure random chance and the same applies to the human brain..
>
>I'm sick and tired of your insults and wild ranting with conclusions that are not supported by evidence.. I will no longer read your posts.

Yes, you keep saying that, and then you almost immediately post more
insults and conclusions not supported by evidence. Not sure how
you're so blind to the very flaws in yourself you falsely accuse me.
This is one of many dishonest tactics you share with your strange
bedfellows.

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT), vtandofsky wrote:
>
> >WRONG.Carson is not a Creationist.. He has made that clear.He does not believe in Young Earth. Several physicians I talked to also have doubts about evolution.
>
>
> WRONG. Carson is definitely a Creationist. You can say that only
> because you practice the same dishonest 3monkeys tactic as your
> strange bedfellows.

Using your definition of Creationist, of course he and millions of others are.
But V identified what he considers a Creationist to be - one that believes in a Young earth. And you claim his tactics are dishonest? Kriminy sakes.

"We don’t know how long that period is before he started the rest of creation. It could be a minute. It could be a trillion years. We don’t know. I have never stated that I have an understanding of how old the earth is. That’s something that a lot of people will ascribe to me."

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/us/politics/from-vaccines-to-creationism-ben-carsons-views-perplex-some.html

>
> FYI there are different kinds of Creationists, and some of them reject
> the concept of a Young Earth. You would know this if you had any idea
> what you're talking about.
>
> Here's another video of Carson spewing his Creationist sermon to the
> choir:

Anything there about belief in a young earth?

>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDIriIhbIM>
>
> *********************************
> @39:25 You know, people try to disparage the Bible, say that these
> things are not true, these are fanciful tales. And yet, there's
> abundant evidence, geological evidence, that there was a world-wide
> flood.
> **********************************
>
> I know of no non-Creationist who believes in a literal interpretation
> of Noah's Flood. Do you?

Strawman. V said that Carson didn't believe in a young earth, what V considers a requisite for being a "creationist".

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 8:30:04 AM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 8:45:02 PM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >

> > The issue is evolution, not tectonic plates. Why don't you stay on topic?
> > >
>

> Evolution is process. Tectonic shift is a selection pressure in that process, its' consideration is indeed on-topic
>
> > Fossilization is a rare event.
>
> So?
>
> >
> > What per cent of the total life forms that ever existed are represented by fossils? You cannot even answer that question.
>
> It's largely irrelevant with regards to the discussion of evolution.
>
> > A fossil of a worm does not establish the existence of anything but a worm.
>
> And descendant forms of worms establish the existence of descendant worms.
>

Now that's some deep thinking.

>
>
> > >
> > > And evidence for evolution goes far beyond fossils. There is also the
> > > phylogenetic tree, which nobody can account for except by evolution.
> > > Plus, yes, we have seen evolution happen. Some experiments have even
> > > kept track of the specific genetic changes which occurred as bacteria
> > > evolved in response to selective pressure. There's plenty more, too,
> > > but any one of those three lines of evidence (fossils, phylogenetics,
> > > and experimental evolution) are already enough to establish the theory
> > > as factual.
> >
> > That's the generally accepted party line, but I don't buy it.
> > I find the arguments and position of the dissenters more persuasive.
>
> OK, you've made up your mind. Then why are you here?

Not that you have made up *your* mind, of course.

>
>
> > Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon,
>
> Ben carson is an idiot savant who has no business talking about anything but neurosurgery.

Congratulations, you can spell idiot.

>
> > a man who dealt with
> > live organisms, their development and their diseases every day.
> > He does not buy evolution and neither do many physicians I have spoken to.
>
> 1) complete bullshit. There is a minority of creationist actual MDs, but they are few and far between. Unless you went specifically looking for one, a random chance of finding one is a bit rare.

Complete bullshit?

"One survey, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine in 2005, found that American doctors are about as likely to be religious as the general population—which is to say, very likely. And religiosity, it's well-known, correlates with a rejection of evolution. "

https://psmag.com/social-justice/how-ben-how
>
> 2) we have established

You've established that you're a loon.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

A Creationist is someone who takes the story of Creation in the Book of Genesis literally. There is NO other definition.. The story of Noah and the Ark is also in Genesis, but it is NOT part of the Creationist story and is irrelevant to the doctrine of Creationism. A clergyman named Bishop Usher used the ages of the prophets listed in the Old Testament to calculate the day of Creation as 4004BC. That is what Young Earth means and it is part of Creationism.

The theory of Intelligent Design does not refer to the Creation story in Genesis and is not Creationism or based on Creationism.

[Joe Cummings]

I know a little bit about Grigbard reactions. Explain what you mean.

Have chemical fun,

Joe Cummings

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 21:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:50:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT), vtandofsky wrote:
>>
>> >WRONG.Carson is not a Creationist.. He has made that clear.He does not believe in Young Earth. Several physicians I talked to also have doubts about evolution.
>>
>>
>> WRONG. Carson is definitely a Creationist. You can say that only
>> because you practice the same dishonest 3monkeys tactic as your
>> strange bedfellows.
>
>Using your definition of Creationist, of course he and millions of others are.
>But V identified what he considers a Creationist to be - one that believes in a Young earth. And you claim his tactics are dishonest? Kriminy sakes.

To the contrary, V's definition is the strawman here. V is dishonest
because he *ignores* evidence contrary to his personal opinions.

As I pointed out before, there are Young-Earth Creationists, and there
are Old-Earth Creationists. Both are Creationists by V's expressed
standard, that they base their claims on what they believe to be the
One True Interpretation of Genesis.

For V to dismiss by fiat an entire class of Creationists is similar to
Creationists who dismiss by fiat Catholics as Christians, and
vice-versa. Such is the nature of religious belief, that it creates
schisms based on pointless distinctions, a form of prejudice and
xenophobia.

I have no obligation to accept V's personal definitions. If he means
that Carson isn't a YEC, he should say that instead, and I would have
no argument against it. Of course, it would still be an irrelevant
distinction in this context.

>"We don’t know how long that period is before he started the rest of creation. It could be a minute. It could be a trillion years. We don’t know. I have never stated that I have an understanding of how old the earth is. That’s something that a lot of people will ascribe to me."
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/us/politics/from-vaccines-to-creationism-ben-carsons-views-perplex-some.html

So Ben Carson an Old-Earth Creationist. My point stands.

>> FYI there are different kinds of Creationists, and some of them reject
>> the concept of a Young Earth. You would know this if you had any idea
>> what you're talking about.
>>
>> Here's another video of Carson spewing his Creationist sermon to the
>> choir:

>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDIriIhbIM>
>>
>> *********************************
>> @39:25 You know, people try to disparage the Bible, say that these
>> things are not true, these are fanciful tales. And yet, there's
>> abundant evidence, geological evidence, that there was a world-wide
>> flood.
>> **********************************
>
>Anything there about belief in a young earth?

Strawman.

>> I know of no non-Creationist who believes in a literal interpretation
>> of Noah's Flood. Do you?
>
>Strawman. V said that Carson didn't believe in a young earth, what V considers a requisite for being a "creationist".

People use personal definitions to dismiss by fiat all kinds of
things. Since V dismisses Old-Earth Creationists as Creationists, he
is obliged to make a case for said dismissal beyond his bald
assertions of it. Not sure how both of you *still* don't understand
this.

[jillery]

Really? Since when? Most YECs I know preach the Biblical Flood as
integral to Creationism. For example, Ken Ham's "Answers In Genesis"
built a simulation of the Biblical Ark to support said belief, using
public taxes, no less.

>A clergyman named Bishop Usher used the ages of the prophets listed in the Old Testament to calculate the day of Creation as 4004BC. That is what Young Earth means and it is part of Creationism.
>
>The theory of Intelligent Design does not refer to the Creation story in Genesis and is not Creationism or based on Creationism.

Creationism is based on the assumption of independent creation of
species, especially humans.

The so-called theory of ID is based on a presumption of a supernatural
Agent who from time-to-time violates physical laws in order to create
things, like bacterial flagella and species, which could not have
originated from unguided natural processes.

Both dogmas claim a purposeful Designer is required to explain the
observed complexity of nature. The difference between them is not one
of principle but of degree. For example, many IDists claim to
acknowledge Common Descent, but that doesn't square with their claimed
origin of de novo features. Those who invoke supernatural agents even
once might as well invoke them all the time and save themselves the
bother of pretending to explain anything.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

LOL! If you knew anything about Grigbard, you could ask more specific questions. You're just bullshitting again.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Here is what the Merriam Webster Dictionary says:


creationism noun
cre·a·tion·ism | \ krē-ˈā-shə-ˌni-zəm \
Definition of Creationism
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

[jillery]

>cre·a·tion·ism | \ kr?-??-sh?-?ni-z?m \

>Definition of Creationism
>: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

That works for me. It's a very different definition from the one you
asserted previously, and is consistent with both OEC and YEC.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 3:05:03 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:

> On 9/16/2018 11:31 PM, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Science requires observation of things to consider them true.
> >

> > We are told evolution happened over millions of years, but nobody was there to see it. Yes, there is fossil evidence, but fossilization is a rare event and is not plentiful enough to confirm all our theories of evolution. We have fossils for a few extinct species, but not for most of them.
> >
>

> As a paleontologist I can say without a doubt that we have *plenty* of
> fossils, but even so, fossils are not the only evidence for evolution. A
> look at Douglas Theobald's excellent FAQ titled "29+ evidences for
> common descent" should suffice:
>
> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You claim to be a paleontologist.We should be able to verify your qualifications.. We cannot do that cause we don't know your name.

As of now, you have no qualifications.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

They couldn't cite me, I published the correct explanation why recombination does not affect the evolution of drug resistance in 2015. And of course, in your reference, they explain why 3 drug combination therapy will not work. Will you cite the paragraph where they explain this? Read my paper and understand something about evolution by recombination because you certainly don't understand the subject now. Once again you have verified that you didn't learn anything in your graduate-level course in population genetics. If you have trouble understanding my paper I'll help explain it to you. Random recombination is nothing more than the random card drawing problem. You do like card drawing problems, don't your?