Darwin: A Myth for the Post-Christian Mind

Malcolm McMahon

2016-11-01 15:51:49 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.

The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Bob

2016-11-01 16:00:29 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.

I won't try to stop you.

Malcolm McMahon

2016-11-01 16:31:54 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.
I won't try to stop you.

So what, exactly, are you doing on alt.atheism?

Christopher A. Lee

2016-11-01 16:36:44 UTC

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.
I won't try to stop you.

So what, exactly, are you doing on alt.atheism?

Being a deliberate jerk.

Bob

2016-11-01 16:52:38 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.
I won't try to stop you.

So what, exactly, are you doing on alt.atheism?

So, do you think you're the only one here?

John Baker

2016-11-01 17:57:02 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.
I won't try to stop you.

So what, exactly, are you doing on alt.atheism?

So, do you think you're the only one here?

So tell me, Boob, why do you imagine any of the regulars here give two
fucks about anything you have to say? And spare me the lie about
"lurkers on the fence." We both know that's a steaming pile of
bullshit.
AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

W.T.S., mhn0The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-01 19:20:22 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch-bull-shit/

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how
biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.
I won't try to stop you.

So what, exactly, are you doing on alt.atheism?

So, do you think you're the only one here?

You darn sure aren't "Bob", we'll be here to refute you at every step:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-t
o-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-ber
linski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-answe
rs-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?_
r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-debun
ked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-fu
ture-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-t
hink-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

Malcolm McMahon

2016-11-02 14:34:31 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.
I won't try to stop you.

So what, exactly, are you doing on alt.atheism?

So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing atheists who, by definition, aren't likely to be creationists. Therefore you _are_ trying to stop, if not me, at least atheists in general.

Either that, or you're posting purely for your own benefit.

Bob

2016-11-02 18:27:44 UTC

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

But you have no grounds, and no room, to make that presumption. You
cannot (legally) presume to know who I am addressing, or even why I post
here. You can only guess. And if that's your guess, then you're wrong.

I can't count how many times I've posted about this already. If you
missed it, and if you really want to know, then you'll have to go back
and read my posts over the last two (or three) years, or at least until
you find one where I explained why I am posting here.

Do you think if I gave you a hint, that might jar your memory? Let's try.
The hint will be completely in reverse. The words and letters are reversed.
Golly gee wilikers, I sure hope you brought your Top Secret Decoder Ring
with you.

Okey dokey, here we go: "srekrul tcele"

There. Did that do any good, or are you still in the dark?

Either way, I'm making a note about this, and dating it. I'd be willing
to bet (if I were a betting man) that we'll be having this same
discussion in less than.... oh, let's see now....I'll give it six months.

So in six months or less I'll be telling you to go back and read what
*you* wrote, not me, on last November the 2nd.

Then we'll have one big laugh, and make plans to do the same thing six
months or less after that one, okay?

That sounds like gobs of fun, doesn't it?

raven1

2016-11-02 18:57:17 UTC

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

Ah, yes, your imaginary "elect lurkers". I'm sure they support you in
email. <llor eye>

<pals hctiB>

Jeanne Douglas

2016-11-03 01:31:10 UTC

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

Ah, yes, your imaginary "elect lurkers". I'm sure they support you in
email. <llor eye>
<pals hctiB>

How much do you have to hate yourself to be this pathetic?

--
JD

I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-11-03 12:55:27 UTC

On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:31:10 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

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

Post by Bob
I can't count how many times I've posted about this already. If you
missed it, and if you really want to know, then you'll have to go back
and read my posts over the last two (or three) years, or at least until
you find one where I explained why I am posting here.

We know. It's because he is a psychopath who imagines posting
religious nonsense in an atheist group to try and annoy, makes some
kind of point.

Post by Bob
Do you think if I gave you a hint, that might jar your memory? Let's try.
The hint will be completely in reverse. The words and letters are reversed.
Golly gee wilikers, I sure hope you brought your Top Secret Decoder Ring
with you.

He's insane.

Post by Bob
Okey dokey, here we go: "srekrul tcele"

Ah, yes, your imaginary "elect lurkers". I'm sure they support you in
email. <llor eye>

One of these loonies' oldest "excuses".

Post by raven1
<pals hctiB>

How much do you have to hate yourself to be this pathetic?

He hates everybody as an extension of that.

Wspwcially when they live full and happy lives without needing a
psychopathic pretend friend which only projects himself.

Bob

2016-11-02 20:56:49 UTC

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

But you have no grounds, and no room, to make that presumption. You
cannot (legally) presume to know who I am addressing, or even why I post
here. You can only guess. And if that's your guess, then you're wrong.
I can't count how many times I've posted about this already. If you
missed it, and if you really want to know, then you'll have to go back
and read my posts over the last two (or three) years, or at least until
you find one where I explained why I am posting here.
Do you think if I gave you a hint, that might jar your memory? Let's try.
The hint will be completely in reverse. The words and letters are reversed.
Golly gee wilikers, I sure hope you brought your Top Secret Decoder Ring
with you.
Okey dokey, here we go: "srekrul tcele"
There. Did that do any good, or are you still in the dark?
Either way, I'm making a note about this, and dating it. I'd be willing
to bet (if I were a betting man) that we'll be having this same
discussion in less than.... oh, let's see now....I'll give it six months.
So in six months or less I'll be telling you to go back and read what
*you* wrote, not me, on last November the 2nd.
Then we'll have one big laugh, and make plans to do the same thing six
months or less after that one, okay?
That sounds like gobs of fun, doesn't it?

Besides, I believe I do my fair share of "chitchat" back and forth with
anyone who brings up a good point that's worth discussing.

But I'm not going to waste my time with someone who thinks their opinion
is written in gold letters.

Nor would I expect anyone else would either.

Ten-four?

Cloud Hobbit

2016-11-02 22:28:45 UTC

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

But you have no grounds, and no room, to make that presumption. You
cannot (legally) presume to know who I am addressing, or even why I post
here. You can only guess. And if that's your guess, then you're wrong.
I can't count how many times I've posted about this already. If you
missed it, and if you really want to know, then you'll have to go back
and read my posts over the last two (or three) years, or at least until
you find one where I explained why I am posting here.
Do you think if I gave you a hint, that might jar your memory? Let's try.
The hint will be completely in reverse. The words and letters are reversed.
Golly gee wilikers, I sure hope you brought your Top Secret Decoder Ring
with you.
Okey dokey, here we go: "srekrul tcele"
There. Did that do any good, or are you still in the dark?
Either way, I'm making a note about this, and dating it. I'd be willing
to bet (if I were a betting man) that we'll be having this same
discussion in less than.... oh, let's see now....I'll give it six months.
So in six months or less I'll be telling you to go back and read what
*you* wrote, not me, on last November the 2nd.
Then we'll have one big laugh, and make plans to do the same thing six
months or less after that one, okay?
That sounds like gobs of fun, doesn't it?

Besides, I believe I do my fair share of "chitchat" back and forth with
anyone who brings up a good point that's worth discussing.
But I'm not going to waste my time with someone who thinks their opinion
is written in gold letters.
Nor would I expect anyone else would either.
Ten-four?

Most of what goes on here when dealing with theists is trying to make them understand that science is not the enemy and that science is the best way to get to the truth of how the universe works.

Evolution is true and has mountains of evidence confirming that this to be so.

There is zero scientific evidence pointing to a biblical creation.

There is zero scientific evidence pointing to a great deluge.

Kevrob

2016-11-03 02:53:36 UTC

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

But you have no grounds, and no room, to make that presumption. You
cannot (legally) presume to know who I am addressing, or even why I post
here. You can only guess. And if that's your guess, then you're wrong.
I can't count how many times I've posted about this already. If you
missed it, and if you really want to know, then you'll have to go back
and read my posts over the last two (or three) years, or at least until
you find one where I explained why I am posting here.
Do you think if I gave you a hint, that might jar your memory? Let's try.
The hint will be completely in reverse. The words and letters are reversed.
Golly gee wilikers, I sure hope you brought your Top Secret Decoder Ring
with you.
Okey dokey, here we go: "srekrul tcele"
There. Did that do any good, or are you still in the dark?
Either way, I'm making a note about this, and dating it. I'd be willing
to bet (if I were a betting man) that we'll be having this same
discussion in less than.... oh, let's see now....I'll give it six months.
So in six months or less I'll be telling you to go back and read what
*you* wrote, not me, on last November the 2nd.
Then we'll have one big laugh, and make plans to do the same thing six
months or less after that one, okay?
That sounds like gobs of fun, doesn't it?

Besides, I believe I do my fair share of "chitchat" back and forth with
anyone who brings up a good point that's worth discussing.
But I'm not going to waste my time with someone who thinks their opinion
is written in gold letters.
Nor would I expect anyone else would either.
Ten-four?

Most of what goes on here when dealing with theists is trying to make them understand that science is not the enemy and that science is the best way to get to the truth of how the universe works.
Evolution is true and has mountains of evidence confirming that this to be so.
There is zero scientific evidence pointing to a biblical creation.
There is zero scientific evidence pointing to a great deluge.

From the FAQ

[quote]

What is the purpose of alt.atheism?

Alt.atheism was created in 1990 as a place to discuss atheism and atheist topics and any other topics that may interest an atheist. Many of us enjoy discussing various topics with other atheists. All are welcome in the newsgroup, whether they're atheists or not, as long as they are not trolls.
The topics of the newsgroup include such diverse subjects as:

Whether it is reasonable to pretend to be religious in order to avoid upsetting your family
Prayer in schools
Discrimination against atheists
Sunday trading laws
The Satanic Child Abuse myth
Whether you should be an overt atheist or 'stay in the closet'
How religious societies prey (sic) on new college students
How to get rid of unwanted proselytizers
Whether religion is a danger to society and/or the individual
Why people become atheists
Of course, inevitably alt.atheism tends to attract the religious looking for someone to convert. Most readers of the newsgroup don't want to be preached to, although a few seem to derive perverse pleasure from tearing apart particularly ill-considered or uninformed postings.

Does the newsgroup have a website?

Yes! You can find the newsgroup's website at http://alt-atheism.org

[quote]

Let me repeat:

[quote]

All are welcome in the newsgroup, whether they're atheists or not, as long as they are not trolls.

[/quote]

"Bob" and the other trolls post in direct opposition to the
charter of the group. If they were "door-knocker" Christian
proselytizers, the second time they came around I'd have them
arrested for trespassing. USENET doesn't work that way, which
is, overall, a good thing. If ISPs cared about it anymore -
many of them have dropped news feeds - I'd trport the likes of
Bob for violating his terms of service, most of which have an
anti-spamming provision. Make no mistake, every time he posts
nothing but a Youtube link, or "Don Kool" posts nothing but a
bible verse, that is spamming the group.

Kevin R

raven1

2016-11-02 23:31:30 UTC

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

But you have no grounds, and no room, to make that presumption. You
cannot (legally) presume to know who I am addressing, or even why I post
here. You can only guess. And if that's your guess, then you're wrong.
I can't count how many times I've posted about this already. If you
missed it, and if you really want to know, then you'll have to go back
and read my posts over the last two (or three) years, or at least until
you find one where I explained why I am posting here.
Do you think if I gave you a hint, that might jar your memory? Let's try.
The hint will be completely in reverse. The words and letters are reversed.
Golly gee wilikers, I sure hope you brought your Top Secret Decoder Ring
with you.
Okey dokey, here we go: "srekrul tcele"
There. Did that do any good, or are you still in the dark?
Either way, I'm making a note about this, and dating it. I'd be willing
to bet (if I were a betting man) that we'll be having this same
discussion in less than.... oh, let's see now....I'll give it six months.
So in six months or less I'll be telling you to go back and read what
*you* wrote, not me, on last November the 2nd.
Then we'll have one big laugh, and make plans to do the same thing six
months or less after that one, okay?
That sounds like gobs of fun, doesn't it?

Besides, I believe I do my fair share of "chitchat" back and forth with
anyone who brings up a good point that's worth discussing.
But I'm not going to waste my time with someone who thinks their opinion
is written in gold letters.

Your lack of self-awareness is truly astounding.

W.T.S., iy7The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-03 04:47:04 UTC

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

But you have no grounds, and no room, to make that presumption. You
cannot (legally) presume to know who I am addressing, or even why I
post here. You can only guess. And if that's your guess, then you're
wrong.
I can't count how many times I've posted about this already. If you
missed it, and if you really want to know, then you'll have to go
back and read my posts over the last two (or three) years, or at
least until you find one where I explained why I am posting here.
Do you think if I gave you a hint, that might jar your memory? Let's
try. The hint will be completely in reverse. The words and letters
are reversed. Golly gee wilikers, I sure hope you brought your Top
Secret Decoder Ring with you.
Okey dokey, here we go: "srekrul tcele"
There. Did that do any good, or are you still in the dark?
Either way, I'm making a note about this, and dating it. I'd be
willing to bet (if I were a betting man) that we'll be having this
same discussion in less than.... oh, let's see now....I'll give it
six months.
So in six months or less I'll be telling you to go back and read what
*you* wrote, not me, on last November the 2nd.
Then we'll have one big laugh, and make plans to do the same thing
six months or less after that one, okay?
That sounds like gobs of fun, doesn't it?

Besides, I believe I do my fair share of "chitchat" back and forth
with anyone who brings up a good point that's worth discussing.
But I'm not going to waste my time with someone who thinks their
opinion is written in gold letters.
Nor would I expect anyone else would either.
Ten-four?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

Cloud Hobbit

2016-11-02 22:23:56 UTC

Post by Bob
So, do you think you're the only one here?

No, but if you post to alt.atheism presumably you are addressing
atheists <snip>

That seems like another one of those unsubstantiated presumptions.
What makes you think they are out there?
Why look for them here?

What makes you think there are many Christian lurkers hanging around an atheist NG?

Why not just post a message that you are forming your own group and let them know where they can find you, instead of invading a place where you know such things as the nonsense you post is going to cause trouble. There is no other thing to conclude other than you want to annoy people by posting unscientific, unevidenced, make believe bullshit.

Post by Bob
There. Did that do any good, or are you still in the dark?

That would be you. You have yet to the light, even though science has made sure that light is available whenever you need it. Just flip the switch.

Post by Bob
Either way, I'm making a note about this, and dating it. I'd be willing
to bet (if I were a betting man) that we'll be having this same
discussion in less than.... oh, let's see now....I'll give it six months.
So in six months or less I'll be telling you to go back and read what
*you* wrote, not me, on last November the 2nd.
Then we'll have one big laugh, and make plans to do the same thing six
months or less after that one, okay?
That sounds like gobs of fun, doesn't it?

Yuck, yuck.

raven1

2016-11-01 19:11:05 UTC

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:31:54 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.
I won't try to stop you.

So what, exactly, are you doing on alt.atheism?

He's an asshole who's here to engage in behavior that would earn him a
punch on the nose if he tried it in real life.

John Locke

2016-11-01 17:23:43 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.
I won't try to stop you.

...how anybody could ignore the mountains of evidence supporting
evolution theory is beyond my comprehension. Evolution theory
is an established fact of nature supported by every university and
research center on the planet. It has been tested and verified for
years across multiple scientific disciplines including embryology,
comparative anatomy, genetics and paleontology with practical
applications in medicine, agriculture and industry. It is the
foundation of our understanding of biological sciences. If evolution
theory did not work as we understand it, we'd be in dire straits. What
kind of a fool would try and refute an established, working science
that humanity depends on ? There is no problem with evolution. I'd
say the problem is with you..and it's a big one. Seek help.

j***@gmail.com

2016-11-01 17:52:34 UTC

John Locke
- show quoted text -
...how anybody could ignore the mountains of evidence supporting
evolution theory is beyond my comprehension. Evolution theory
is an established fact of nature
........

A theory cannot be a fact. That a particular theory exists might be a fact, for example.

Cloud Hobbit

2016-11-01 19:56:48 UTC

Post by j***@gmail.com
John Locke
- show quoted text -
...how anybody could ignore the mountains of evidence supporting
evolution theory is beyond my comprehension. Evolution theory
is an established fact of nature
........
A theory cannot be a fact.

A scientific theory is an explanation for observable, testable facts.
It is a conclusion. If after 150 years no problems are found with the conclusion and that conclusion helps us produce new medicines and technologies, then people tend to consider it a fact. Science being ever cautious will not go that far, but it's obvious that Darwin's theory is a correct explanation of the facts he observed and tested. The mountains of evidence since its formation, show that Darwin's theory is spot on. Testing, retesting, the fossil record, the discovery of DNA, and virtually everything in biology is tied to evolution. Evolution is a fact. Darwin's theory explains how it works.

That a particular theory exists might be a fact, for example.

Bob

2016-11-01 20:32:03 UTC

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 10:52:36 AM UTC-7,

John Locke - show quoted text - ...how anybody could ignore the
mountains of evidence supporting evolution theory is beyond my
comprehension. Evolution theory is an established fact of nature
........
A theory cannot be a fact.

A scientific theory is an explanation for observable, testable
facts.

If it's already a known fact, then what's it being tested for?

It is a conclusion.

No, that's just your opinion. That's what you want it to be.

If after 150 years no problems are found with the conclusion <snip>

But problems have been found. That's what the hundreds of scientists
and college professors that have signed the Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism Statement are saying. You just don't want to hear them.
There's your problem.

W.T.S., mhn0The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-02 00:16:45 UTC

Bob <***@null.null> wrote in news:nvau40$p81$***@gioia.aioe.org:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

Cloud Hobbit

2016-11-02 22:07:01 UTC

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 10:52:36 AM UTC-7,

John Locke - show quoted text - ...how anybody could ignore the
mountains of evidence supporting evolution theory is beyond my
comprehension. Evolution theory is an established fact of nature
........
A theory cannot be a fact.

A scientific theory is an explanation for observable, testable facts.

If it's already a known fact, then what's it being tested for?

To test to see if the facts work together the way you expect.

It is a conclusion.

No, that's just your opinion. That's what you want it to be.

Nope, that's the truth.

If after 150 years no problems are found with the conclusion <snip>

But problems have been found.

Not by any real scientists, certainly not by the ones who rely on evolutionary theory to cure disease.

That's what the hundreds of scientists

A tiny, tiny minority.

Post by Bob
and college professors that have signed the Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism Statement are saying. You just don't want to hear them.
There's your problem.

I hear them, I looked at the list and I found that most of the people on the list have no expertise or training in the fields of science where evolution theory used. They were mathematicians, engineers, and chemists, but hardly any biologists, or any other field like palaeontology, where evolutionary theory is used. IOW most of them have no business talking about what they don't know anything about. Also, most of the people who signed are religious nutters.
Experience has shown me that anybody arguing against Darwin's theory of Evolution through natural selection are not above lying, distorting and quote mining to try and get their non-point across. Just ook at how dishonest yo have been in this thread. trying to convince people that there is some massive exodus from the Darwin supporters to creationism when no such thing is happening. Or that there is suddenly a large group of scientists who are now questioning the ToE, when there is no such thing happening. There is no counter-explanation that will stand up to scientific scrutiny. There is no other theory that has been tested with anywhere near the confirmation. Thre is no other theory that explains the changes that happen to living things over time.

Bob

2016-11-02 22:16:01 UTC

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 10:52:36 AM UTC-7,

John Locke - show quoted text - ...how anybody could ignore the
mountains of evidence supporting evolution theory is beyond my
comprehension. Evolution theory is an established fact of nature
........
A theory cannot be a fact.

A scientific theory is an explanation for observable, testable facts.

If it's already a known fact, then what's it being tested for?

To test to see if the facts work together the way you expect.

So it's not a "known fact" yet if you're not sure.
That's all I wanted to hear you say.

It is a conclusion.

No, that's just your opinion. That's what you want it to be.

Nope, that's the truth.

Without proof it's not the truth, it's just your opinion.

If after 150 years no problems are found with the conclusion <snip>

But problems have been found.

Not by any real scientists, certainly not by the ones who rely on evolutionary theory to cure disease.

That too is just your opinion, unless you can prove it.

Post by Bob
That's what the hundreds of scientists

A tiny, tiny minority.

You're forgetting the "new kid on the block" just moved here.
Just be patient, and wait.

Post by Bob
and college professors that have signed the Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism Statement are saying. You just don't want to hear them.
There's your problem.

I hear them, I looked at the list and I found that most of the people
on the list have no expertise or training in the fields of science
where evolution theory used.

Proof? Where's your proof?

You're just all talk, no proof.

You got nothing.

<smirk>

Cloud Hobbit

2016-11-02 23:01:15 UTC

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 10:52:36 AM UTC-7,

John Locke - show quoted text - ...how anybody could ignore the
mountains of evidence supporting evolution theory is beyond my
comprehension. Evolution theory is an established fact of nature
........
A theory cannot be a fact.

A scientific theory is an explanation for observable, testable facts.

If it's already a known fact, then what's it being tested for?

To test to see if the facts work together the way you expect.

So it's not a "known fact" yet if you're not sure.
That's all I wanted to hear you say.

Then you have a problem, because that is not what I said.

It is a conclusion.

No, that's just your opinion. That's what you want it to be.

Nope, that's the truth.

Without proof it's not the truth, it's just your opinion.

But the proof exists, you just ignore it.

If after 150 years no problems are found with the conclusion <snip>

But problems have been found.

Not by any real scientists, certainly not by the ones who rely on evolutionary theory to cure disease.

That too is just your opinion, unless you can prove it.

You are the one claiming the massive exodus from Evolution. Where is the proof of that? 24 pages is probably less than 1% of the scientists in the world.
The claim you're making is not backed up by any evidence.

Post by Bob
That's what the hundreds of scientists

A tiny, tiny minority.

You're forgetting the "new kid on the block" just moved here.
Just be patient, and wait.

There is no new kid on the block, it's just the same old drivel that theists have been spewing since science started proving the bible got things wrong.

Post by Bob
and college professors that have signed the Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism Statement are saying. You just don't want to hear them.
There's your problem.

I hear them, I looked at the list and I found that most of the people
on the list have no expertise or training in the fields of science
where evolution theory used.

Proof? Where's your proof?

Look at the letters after the names on the list. They tell you what the person's field of expertise is. LiKe I said lots of mathematicians, engineers, and chemists, but hardly any biologist, and I don't recall any palentoglgists.
It's easily checked.

Post by Bob
You're just all talk, no proof.
You got nothing.
<smirk>

Smirk all you want, you still have nothing.

Bob

2016-11-02 23:05:29 UTC

Post by Bob
So it's not a "known fact" yet if you're not sure.
That's all I wanted to hear you say.

Then you have a problem, because that is not what I said.

And you're a liar too.

W.T.S., iy7The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-03 04:50:13 UTC

Post by Bob
So it's not a "known fact" yet if you're not sure.
That's all I wanted to hear you say.

Then you have a problem, because that is not what I said.

And you're a liar too.

Here's real proof of your constant lying, "Bob":

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

Cloud Hobbit

2016-11-03 06:34:09 UTC

Post by Bob
So it's not a "known fact" yet if you're not sure.
That's all I wanted to hear you say.

Then you have a problem, because that is not what I said.

And you're a liar too.

Here's what I said: > >

Post by Cloud Hobbit
A scientific theory is an explanation for observable, testable facts.

If it's already a known fact, then what's it being tested for?

To test to see if the facts work together the way you expect.

IOW you are testing a collection of facts in a specific way to see if they work together the way you expect them to.

Once you have tested the entire theory, and you keep getting the same results, you start to think, this theory of mine seems to right. Then you test it some more, just to be sure. Maybe you share your data with someone and they test it and get slightly different results, then you have to see why. It's a long process, and in the case of evolution, much longer than most, and it keeps proving itself correct.

Until you have another scientifically validated theory that prove darwin was wrong, you got nothing.

Bob

2016-11-03 09:51:11 UTC

Post by Bob
If it's already a known fact, then what's it being tested for?

To test to see if the facts work together the way you expect.

What "facts" would not work together the way you expect?

W.T.S., iy7The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-03 04:49:11 UTC

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 10:52:36 AM UTC-7,

John Locke - show quoted text - ...how anybody could ignore the
mountains of evidence supporting evolution theory is beyond my
comprehension. Evolution theory is an established fact of nature
........
A theory cannot be a fact.

A scientific theory is an explanation for observable, testable facts.

If it's already a known fact, then what's it being tested for?

To test to see if the facts work together the way you expect.

So it's not a "known fact" yet if you're not sure.
That's all I wanted to hear you say.

It is a conclusion.

No, that's just your opinion. That's what you want it to be.

Nope, that's the truth.

Without proof it's not the truth, it's just your opinion.

If after 150 years no problems are found with the conclusion <snip>

But problems have been found.

Not by any real scientists, certainly not by the ones who rely on
evolutionary theory to cure disease.

That too is just your opinion, unless you can prove it.

Post by Bob
That's what the hundreds of scientists

A tiny, tiny minority.

You're forgetting the "new kid on the block" just moved here.
Just be patient, and wait.

Post by Bob
and college professors that have signed the Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism Statement are saying. You just don't want to hear them.
There's your problem.

I hear them, I looked at the list and I found that most of the people
on the list have no expertise or training in the fields of science
where evolution theory used.

Proof? Where's your proof?
You're just all talk, no proof.
You got nothing.
<smirk>

Here's some real proof for you, "Bob" <bitch slap>:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

Andrew

2016-11-03 07:02:10 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Thre is no other theory that explains the changes that
happen to living things over time.

Change, adaption and variation happen to living things
in the Creation model of origins, all the time.

W.T.S., iy7The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-03 07:27:47 UTC

"Andrew86" <***@usa.net> Farted in news:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

W.T.S., mhn0The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-01 19:18:14 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch-bull-shit/

Darwin isn't a myth, he really existed.
The ToE isn't a myth, it's the best theory we have of how biological diversity developed.

Keep deceiving yourself with your unsubstantiated opinion.
I won't try to stop you.

You can't stop the truth, "Bob":

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-t
o-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-ber
linski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-answe
rs-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?_
r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-debun
ked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-fu
ture-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-t
hink-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

Tex

2016-11-01 17:02:35 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt

In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).

The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no "explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.

Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.

From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.

The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs).

This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular".[45]

Tex

John Locke

2016-11-01 19:27:13 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt
In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).
The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no "explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.
Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.
The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs).
This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular".[45]
Tex

...and here's yet another thorough debunking of Darwin's Doubt by
the American paleontologist and geologist Donald Prothero:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-amateur-cambrian-follies/
or
http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv

"The mistakes and deliberate misunderstandings and misinterpretations
go on and on, page after page. Meyer takes the normal scientific
debates about the early conflicts about the molecular vs.
morphological trees of life as evidence scientists know nothing,
completely ignoring the recent consensus between these data sets. Like
all creationists, he completely misinterprets the Eldredge and Gould
punctuated equilibrium model and claims that they are arguing that
evolution doesnt occurwhen both Gould and Eldredge have clearly
explained many times (which he never cites) why their ideas are
compatible with Neo-Darwinism and not any kind of support for any form
of creationism. He repeats many of the other classic creationist
myths, all long debunked, including the post hoc argument from
probability (you cant make the argument that something is unlikely
after the fact), knowing that his math-phobic audience is easily
bamboozled by the misuse of big numbers. He wastes a full chapter on
the empty concept of information as the ID creationists define it.
He butchers the subject of systematic biology, using the normal debate
between competing hypotheses to argue that scientists cant make up
their mindswhen that is the ordinary way in which scientific
questions are argued until consensus has been reached. He confuses
crown-groups with stem-groups, botches the arguments about recognition
of ancestors in the fossil record, and cant tell a cladogram from a
family tree. He blunders through the fields of epigenetics and
evo-devo and genetic drift as if they completely falsified
Neo-Darwinism, rather than as scientists view them, as supplements to
our understanding of it. (Even if they did somehow shoot down some
aspects of Neo-Darwinism, they are providing additional possible
mechanisms for evolution, something he supposedly does not believe
in!). In short, he runs the full gamut of topics in modern
evolutionary biology, managing to distort or confuse every one of
them, and only demonstrating that he is completely incapable of
understanding these topics."

Cloud Hobbit

2016-11-01 19:49:09 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt
In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).
The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no "explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.
Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.
The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs).
This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular".[45]
Tex

It's always the same. Nobody arguing for theism can ever do so honestly.
Nobody seems to be able to do so without lies, distortion, exaggerations, mined quotes, and at least a partial misunderstanding of what they are talking about.
There is no honest way to present an argument for the imaginary.

Like I always say, they have nothing.
No science, no truth, no evidence, no proof, and no reason to expect there ever will be. I expect to see proof of leprechauns before proof of god.

Bob

2016-11-01 20:45:04 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt
In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New
Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by
the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement.
Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new
computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct
a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not
available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).
The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no
"explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps
identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of
the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and
his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook
references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument
that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps
therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of
intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.
Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if
something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be
the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of
pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should
not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer
sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his
credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University
of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable
manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material
evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against
spirituality.
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall
wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship"
published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case
for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his
understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil
records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book)
is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with
misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific
consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and
superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially
molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.
The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time
scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive
the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall
points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal
species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by
evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene
regulatory networks (GRNs).
This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his
fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of
emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the
gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide
solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society
and by science in particular".[45]
Tex

It's always the same.

You're right. It's just one person's opinion against another person's
opinion.

Somebody getting mad because somebody else doesn't see the world the way
they see it.

There are no verifiable facts involved here at all. Not one.

It's just one big ego trip.

Get over it.

raven1

2016-11-01 22:08:35 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt
In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New
Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by
the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement.
Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new
computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct
a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not
available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).
The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no
"explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps
identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of
the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and
his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook
references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument
that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps
therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of
intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.
Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if
something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be
the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of
pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should
not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer
sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his
credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University
of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable
manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material
evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against
spirituality.
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall
wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship"
published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case
for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his
understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil
records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book)
is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with
misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific
consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and
superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially
molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.
The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time
scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive
the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall
points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal
species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by
evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene
regulatory networks (GRNs).
This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his
fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of
emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the
gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide
solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society
and by science in particular".[45]
Tex

It's always the same.

You're right. It's just one person's opinion against another person's
opinion.
Somebody getting mad because somebody else doesn't see the world the way
they see it.
There are no verifiable facts involved here at all. Not one.
It's just one big ego trip.
Get over it.

I always find it hysterical when Christians retreat into
post-modernism as their last line of defense.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-11-01 22:24:36 UTC

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:08:35 -0400, raven1

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt
In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New
Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by
the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement.
Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new
computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct
a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not
available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).
The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no
"explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps
identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of
the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and
his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook
references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument
that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps
therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of
intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.
Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if
something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be
the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of
pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should
not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer
sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his
credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University
of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable
manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material
evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against
spirituality.
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall
wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship"
published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case
for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his
understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil
records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book)
is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with
misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific
consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and
superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially
molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.
The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time
scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive
the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall
points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal
species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by
evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene
regulatory networks (GRNs).
This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his
fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of
emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the
gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide
solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society
and by science in particular".[45]
Tex

It's always the same.

You're right. It's just one person's opinion against another person's
opinion.

And these liars wonder why "all you (atheists) ever do is call people
liars when you disagree with them".

Post by Bob
Somebody getting mad because somebody else doesn't see the world the way
they see it.

Another outright lie.

Post by Bob
There are no verifiable facts involved here at all. Not one.

And again.

Post by Bob
It's just one big ego trip.

Yet another.

Post by Bob
Get over it.

Just who the fuck does the arrogant little shit "think" he is.

Post by raven1
I always find it hysterical when Christians retreat into
post-modernism as their last line of defense.

They imagine that scientists make up facts and that scientific
understand was plucked out of thin air, because they can't understand
why science hasn't confirmed what they imagine they know.

That's the root of all their ad hominems.

Augustine had to deal with people like that, although it was from a
different perspective. He felt that if people listened to them talking
nonsense, they would think Christianity was nonsense.

While when we hear them talk nonsense, we conclude that they are
ignorant, uneducated idiots.

Originally posted Sept 1993 by Tom Scharle

Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram
libri duodecim) (translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian
Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41)
Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth,
the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the
motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative
positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the
cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals,
shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as
being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to
prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up
vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is
not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that
people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers
held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and
rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a
field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his
foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe
those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they
think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they
themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold
trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in
one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by
those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For
then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue
statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof
and even recite from memory many passages which they think support
their position, although _they understand neither what they say
nor the things about which they make assertion_. [1 Timothy 1.7]"

W.T.S., mhn0The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-02 00:22:57 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt
In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New
Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by
the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement.
Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new
computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct
a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not
available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).
The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no
"explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps
identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of
the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and
his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook
references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument
that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps
therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of
intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.
Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if
something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be
the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of
pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should
not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer
sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his
credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University
of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable
manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material
evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against
spirituality.
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall
wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship"
published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case
for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his
understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil
records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book)
is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with
misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific
consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and
superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially
molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.
The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time
scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive
the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall
points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal
species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by
evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene
regulatory networks (GRNs).
This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his
fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of
emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the
gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide
solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society
and by science in particular".[45]
Tex

It's always the same.

You're right. It's just one person's opinion against another person's
opinion.
Somebody getting mad because somebody else doesn't see the world the way
they see it.
There are no verifiable facts involved here at all. Not one.
It's just one big ego trip.
Get over it.

Creationism is a lie, ID is a lie, get over it:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

Cloud Hobbit

2016-11-02 22:11:13 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt
In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New
Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by
the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement.
Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new
computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct
a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not
available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).
The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no
"explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps
identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of
the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and
his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook
references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument
that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps
therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of
intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.
Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if
something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be
the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of
pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should
not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer
sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his
credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University
of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable
manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material
evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against
spirituality.
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall
wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship"
published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case
for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his
understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil
records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book)
is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with
misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific
consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and
superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially
molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.
The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time
scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive
the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall
points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal
species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by
evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene
regulatory networks (GRNs).
This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his
fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of
emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the
gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide
solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society
and by science in particular".[45]
Tex

It's always the same.

You're right. It's just one person's opinion against another person's
opinion.
Somebody getting mad because somebody else doesn't see the world the way
they see it.
There are no verifiable facts involved here at all. Not one.

Of course there are, that is how we know that Darwin got it right.

Post by Bob
It's just one big ego trip.

No, it's science, science with enough confirmation through testing and real life that it is not in any doubt. If there were any doubt, there would be no antibiotics, and no new fields of medicine based on evolutionary theory. It has nothing to with ego and everything to do with facts and reality.

Post by Bob
Get over it.

I'm not the one with the problem accepting the truth.

Bob

2016-11-02 22:18:23 UTC

Post by Bob
There are no verifiable facts involved here at all. Not one.

Of course there are, that is how we know that Darwin got it right.

All talk, and no proof.

You got nothing.

W.T.S., iy7The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-03 04:51:19 UTC

Post by Bob
There are no verifiable facts involved here at all. Not one.

Of course there are, that is how we know that Darwin got it right.

All talk, and no proof.
You got nothing.

Have a dose of proof, "Bob":

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>

<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>

<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>

"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

Kevrob

2016-11-03 02:35:50 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt
In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).
The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no "explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.
Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.
The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs).
This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular".[45]
Tex

It's always the same. Nobody arguing for theism can ever do so honestly.
Nobody seems to be able to do so without lies, distortion, exaggerations, mined quotes, and at least a partial misunderstanding of what they are talking about.
There is no honest way to present an argument for the imaginary.
Like I always say, they have nothing.
No science, no truth, no evidence, no proof, and no reason to expect there ever will be. I expect to see proof of leprechauns before proof of god.

Leprechauns are a degenerate version of the Irish fairy folk, Aos Sí.
The Sí were sent to live underground, in what came to be known as fairy
mounds, or in an Otherworld. In some stories, they are the remnant of
the Tuatha Dé Danann, mythical conquerors of the Fir Bolg, who were in
turn conquered by the Milesians. It's all laid out in "The Book of
Invasions" (Lebor Gabála Érenn.)

Now, the mythology is fun, but there is probably folk history hiding
under it. Invasions did occur, or mass migrations. Think of the
Germanic tribes driven west into the fringes of the Roman empire,
eventually overrunning the Eternal City. The Tuatha Dé, or whatever
they called themselves, were almost certainly absorbed into the
gene pool of their conquerors. Where else could they go?

So, some of we Irish-descended and Irish folk are bound to be,
at least in part, people of Danu, and cousins, if not siblings,
of the leprechaun!

Unfortunately, I have no crocks of gold, buried or not

Of course, we know what the theists have in their crocks.

Kevin R

Cloud Hobbit

2016-11-03 06:36:58 UTC

Post by Kevrob

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/PbcY9iya40o

From Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer#Darwin.27s_Doubt
In his article "Doubting 'Darwin's Doubt'" published in The New Yorker,[42] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not available to Darwin (hence his "doubt" in Meyer's words).
The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no "explosion". Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[43] Cook references scientific literature[44] to refute Meyer's argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the 'intelligent designer'.
Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.
From a different perspective, paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis.
The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs).
This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to "provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular".[45]
Tex

It's always the same. Nobody arguing for theism can ever do so honestly.
Nobody seems to be able to do so without lies, distortion, exaggerations, mined quotes, and at least a partial misunderstanding of what they are talking about.
There is no honest way to present an argument for the imaginary.
Like I always say, they have nothing.
No science, no truth, no evidence, no proof, and no reason to expect there ever will be. I expect to see proof of leprechauns before proof of god.

Leprechauns are a degenerate version of the Irish fairy folk, Aos Sí.
The Sí were sent to live underground, in what came to be known as fairy
mounds, or in an Otherworld. In some stories, they are the remnant of
the Tuatha Dé Danann, mythical conquerors of the Fir Bolg, who were in
turn conquered by the Milesians. It's all laid out in "The Book of
Invasions" (Lebor Gabála Érenn.)
Now, the mythology is fun, but there is probably folk history hiding
under it. Invasions did occur, or mass migrations. Think of the
Germanic tribes driven west into the fringes of the Roman empire,
eventually overrunning the Eternal City. The Tuatha Dé, or whatever
they called themselves, were almost certainly absorbed into the
gene pool of their conquerors. Where else could they go?
So, some of we Irish-descended and Irish folk are bound to be,
at least in part, people of Danu, and cousins, if not siblings,
of the leprechaun!
Unfortunately, I have no crocks of gold, buried or not
Of course, we know what the theists have in their crocks.
Kevin R

Indeed.

Smiler

2016-11-03 20:32:00 UTC

On Wed, 02 Nov 2016 19:35:50 -0700, Kevrob wrote:

<snip>

Post by Kevrob
Leprechauns are a degenerate version of the Irish fairy folk, Aos Sí.
The Sí were sent to live underground, in what came to be known as fairy
mounds, or in an Otherworld. In some stories, they are the remnant of
the Tuatha Dé Danann, mythical conquerors of the Fir Bolg, who were in
turn conquered by the Milesians. It's all laid out in "The Book of
Invasions" (Lebor Gabála Érenn.)
Now, the mythology is fun, but there is probably folk history hiding
under it. Invasions did occur, or mass migrations. Think of the
Germanic tribes driven west into the fringes of the Roman empire,
eventually overrunning the Eternal City. The Tuatha Dé, or whatever
they called themselves, were almost certainly absorbed into the gene
pool of their conquerors. Where else could they go?
So, some of we Irish-descended and Irish folk are bound to be,
at least in part, people of Danu, and cousins, if not siblings,
of the leprechaun!
Unfortunately, I have no crocks of gold, buried or not.

I'm unlucky too. Every time I see a rainbow I go to the end of it and dig,
but never find the gold. Why do I always chose the _wrong_ end to dig?

Post by Kevrob
Of course, we know what the theists have in their crocks.
Kevin R

--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

Davej

2016-11-01 17:11:10 UTC

[...]

Christianity is on it's way out thanks to deliberate morons
like you. Rather than accept science and rational evidence
you want to cling to Biblical idiocy and promote anti-science.
If your god exists then he used evolution to achieve his
results, but maybe that fact just rubs you the wrong way.

John Locke

2016-11-01 17:51:01 UTC

Post by Davej

[...]

...fortunately we live in a country where the religious chicanery
so tenaciously employed by poisonous Bob has been
thoroughly debunked and rejected by main stream science
and laws in place to keep the venom out of public schools.
We have then in check, however, what actually makes these religious
loonies tick is still is beyond my comprehension. Educating them is
beyond futile. You'd have better luck with a termite.

W.T.S., mhn0The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-11-01 19:16:08 UTC