Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin?

b***@m.nu

2016-10-14 12:04:21 UTC

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:49:04 -0400, Bob <***@null.null> wrote:

until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Mike Duffy

2016-10-14 14:14:31 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Bob is actually taking deliberate steps to make his posts more cogent.

In message: <ntmi3b$e5c$***@gioia.aioe.org> , he admits that he is taking
notes from me in order to improve his debating skills. And he is even
going so far as to thank me personally for my help!

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-14 14:43:28 UTC

Post by Mike Duffy

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Bob is actually taking deliberate steps to make his posts more cogent.
notes from me in order to improve his debating skills. And he is even
going so far as to thank me personally for my help!

He has nothing to debate.

b***@m.nu

2016-10-14 14:54:15 UTC

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:43:28 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mike Duffy

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Bob is actually taking deliberate steps to make his posts more cogent.
notes from me in order to improve his debating skills. And he is even
going so far as to thank me personally for my help!

He has nothing to debate.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-14 15:28:01 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:43:28 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mike Duffy

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Bob is actually taking deliberate steps to make his posts more cogent.
notes from me in order to improve his debating skills. And he is even
going so far as to thank me personally for my help!

He has nothing to debate.

Too many theists imagine that wiping their unsolicited nonsense in our
faces, is "debate", and they get upset when we tell them where to
shove it.

Andrew

2016-10-15 09:47:44 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-15 10:40:09 UTC

Until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all.

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

What "research"??? Some religious nutjob's made up nonsense and
bull shit? Try visiting the Natural History museum in Washington,
D.C., try taking a field trip with an actual research group, try
reading a college or university textbook instead of a "bible" full
of myths! Start here:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<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://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>

b***@m.nu

2016-10-15 13:20:38 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation, except the research that was
"invented" by the theists, but it wasnt actually research because all
they did were read parts of the bible which is a fairy tale anyway. So
if you feel that there is actual evidence then please present it and
all sources where you got your material from

Bob

2016-10-15 13:37:53 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation...

No, you're wrong.

The research being done presently supports creationism, while simultaneously
refuting evolution.

You haven't been watching the videos, otherwise you would know what
you're talking about.

Mitchell Holman

2016-10-15 13:50:27 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation...

No, you're wrong.
The research being done presently supports creationism, while
simultaneously refuting evolution.

Post for us the documentation - not
a youtube video - of this "research"

Put it right here:

Bob

2016-10-15 15:01:56 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation...

No, you're wrong.
The research being done presently supports creationism, while
simultaneously refuting evolution.

Post for us the documentation - not
a youtube video - of this "research"

Just admit that you're too lazy, or too scared, or both, to watch any of
the videos I've posted links to that have anything to do with "refuting
evolution".

Think about it: why else would the list of scientists and college
professors that publicly signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism be
continuously growing larger?

Mitchell Holman

2016-10-15 17:11:37 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation...

No, you're wrong.
The research being done presently supports creationism, while
simultaneously refuting evolution.

Post for us the documentation - not
a youtube video - of this "research"

Just admit that you're too lazy, or too scared, or both, to watch any of
the videos I've posted links to that have anything to do with "refuting
evolution".

If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

Post by Bob
Think about it: why else would the list of scientists and college
professors that publicly signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism be
continuously growing larger?

How many of them are professionals in the
fields of biology and paleontology?

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-15 17:19:54 UTC

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:11:37 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by b***@m.nu
dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation...

No, you're wrong.
The research being done presently supports creationism, while
simultaneously refuting evolution.

Post for us the documentation - not
a youtube video - of this "research"

Just admit that you're too lazy, or too scared, or both, to watch any of
the videos I've posted links to that have anything to do with "refuting
evolution".

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

It's like telling people to watch videos purporting to "prove" the
flat Earth.

And then accusing them of being scared.

He's mentally ill.

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

Post by Bob
Think about it: why else would the list of scientists and college
professors that publicly signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism be
continuously growing larger?

How many of them are professionals in the
fields of biology and paleontology?

He's lying - as usual.

But then he's a creationist - they have to, in order to remain in
denial.

Bob

2016-10-15 19:57:02 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

No matter who did the research, or who performed the experiments, under
who's auspices, at whatever laboratory, you would look for some reason
not to accept it. Jesus Christ himself could appear in front of you, and
tell you everything there is to know about your past, and your future,
and you would still claim he was a fake, and that somebody somewhere had
given him that information.

Long story short, I'm not going to let you waste any of my time.

I'm not trying to convince you that evolution is on it's way out the
door, and
creationism is here to stay.

I don't really care what you believe.

Post by Bob
Think about it: why else would the list of scientists and college
professors that publicly signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism be
continuously growing larger?

How many of them are professionals in the
fields of biology and paleontology?

Do you not know how to count?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Mitchell Holman

2016-10-15 20:05:57 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

So you claim there is proof that proves
you right but you refuse to post it.

Hmmm............

Post by Bob
Long story short, I'm not going to let you waste any of my time.
I'm not trying to convince you that evolution is on it's way out the
door, and
creationism is here to stay.
I don't really care what you believe.

Then why are you posting here?

Bob

2016-10-15 20:09:18 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

So you claim there is proof that proves
you right but you refuse to post it.

I already have.

Then why are you posting here?

Because I can.

b***@m.nu

2016-10-15 21:38:23 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

So you claim there is proof that proves
you right but you refuse to post it.

I already have.

Your walt disney youtube videos only prove one thing. That you are an
idiot!!

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-15 23:42:13 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

Yes, you have no real reasearch, only what you've dreamed up.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So you claim there is proof that proves
you right but you refuse to post it.

I already have.

You've posted nothing but tripe.

Post by Bob
Long story short, I'm not going to let you waste any of my time.
I'm not trying to convince you that evolution is on it's way out the
door, and creationism is here to stay.
I don't really care what you believe.

Bull shit. You have books and DVDs to sell to your marks.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Then why are you posting here?

Because I can.

We can too, each and everytime you post bull shit, we're going to
espose you. Confine yourself to alt.talk.creationism or at least
alt.evolution, or face constant expose of your con game.

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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>

Mitchell Holman

2016-10-16 01:47:14 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

So you claim there is proof that proves
you right but you refuse to post it.

I already have.

Just post your proof.

Bob

2016-10-16 05:40:57 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

So you claim there is proof that proves
you right but you refuse to post it.

I already have.

Just post your proof.

If you haven't already seen it, then you're not meant to see it.

Somewhere, someone has seen it, or will see it in the videos.

They are meant to see it.

It's just that simple.

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 06:23:06 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

So you claim there is proof that proves
you right but you refuse to post it.

I already have.

Just post your proof.

If you haven't already seen it, then you're not meant to see it.

It hasn't been seen because it does not exist. No theist has ever presetnted proof of a god.

Post by Bob
Somewhere, someone has seen it, or will see it in the videos.
They are meant to see it.

Like you'd know.

Post by Bob
It's just that simple.

Yes, you are, or you think we are.

Andrew

2016-10-16 10:10:28 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
No theist has ever presetnted proof of a god.

There is no 'god'. This has already been
explained to you.

There is however, God.

"The single mightiest entity in the universe."
~ "Cloud Hobbit"

That's who He is.

Amen.

W.T.S., cc4-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-16 10:36:50 UTC

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in news:0tidnc9c7LeOz57FnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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>

Ted&Alice

2016-10-16 12:33:22 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
No theist has ever presetnted proof of a god.

There is no 'god'. This has already been
explained to you.
There is however, God.

God eats shit.

Andrew

2016-10-16 10:10:43 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

So you claim there is proof that proves
you right but you refuse to post it.

I already have.

Just post your proof.

If you haven't already seen it, then you're not meant to see it.
Somewhere, someone has seen it, or will see it in the videos.
They are meant to see it.
It's just that simple.

"They received not the love of the truth, that
they might be saved. And for this cause God
shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie, that they all might be
damned who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness."
~ 2 Thess 2:10-12

One must receive the -->"love of the truth".

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-16 10:35:17 UTC

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in news:rbadnaTSwry_z57FnZ2dnUU7-
***@earthlink.com:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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>

Bob

2016-10-16 10:41:48 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

So you claim there is proof that proves
you right but you refuse to post it.

I already have.

Just post your proof.

If you haven't already seen it, then you're not meant to see it.
Somewhere, someone has seen it, or will see it in the videos.
They are meant to see it.
It's just that simple.

Exactly. Well put.

And they want to know why we can't show them evidence of God's existence.

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine
nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the
world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
(Romans 1:20)

They have no one to blame but themselves.

It's just that simple.

All glory to God the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen and amen.

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-15 20:25:14 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

We know you've never read an actual scientific link!!!

Post by Bob
No matter who did the research, or who performed the experiments,
under who's auspices, at whatever laboratory, you would look for some
reason not to accept it. Jesus Christ himself could appear in front of
you, and tell you everything there is to know about your past, and
your future, and you would still claim he was a fake, and that
somebody somewhere had given him that information.
Long story short, I'm not going to let you waste any of my time.
I'm not trying to convince you that evolution is on it's way out the
door, and creationism is here to stay.
I don't really care what you believe.

Post by Bob
Think about it: why else would the list of scientists and college
professors that publicly signed the Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism be continuously growing larger?

Creationism is a profitable business?

Post by Mitchell Holman
How many of them are professionals in the
fields of biology and paleontology?

Do you not know how to count?

Sure, and the answer is zero point zero.

Post by Bob
http://www.BullShit.Bozos/Lies/Propaganda/Disinformation/Cons/

Try these links:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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>

b***@m.nu

2016-10-15 21:36:09 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?
No matter who did the research, or who performed the experiments, under
who's auspices, at whatever laboratory, you would look for some reason
not to accept it. Jesus Christ himself could appear in front of you, and
tell you everything there is to know about your past, and your future,
and you would still claim he was a fake, and that somebody somewhere had
given him that information.
Long story short, I'm not going to let you waste any of my time.

OK in other words all you have is some idiots on youtube for all of
your information. Good job!

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-16 00:17:37 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

WHAT FUCKING JESUS CHRIST?

Post by Bob
tell you everything there is to know about your past, and your future,
and you would still claim he was a fake, and that somebody somewhere had
given him that information.

And if pigs had wings...

Post by Bob
Long story short, I'm not going to let you waste any of my time.

The thoroughly dishonest, in-your-face, proven serially lying
religious loonie refuses even to try and understand reality - and
keeps repeating the same lies hare, about something that has nothing
to do with atheism.

Post by b***@m.nu
OK in other words all you have is some idiots on youtube for all of
your information. Good job!

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 00:31:35 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
If you have a link to research paper that
prove your point then post them.

We both know that would be a waste of time, don't we?

Because no such research exists.

Post by Bob
No matter who did the research, or who performed the experiments, under
who's auspices, at whatever laboratory, you would look for some reason
not to accept it.

Wrong. Much would depend on peer review and what sort of profs were offered.

Jesus Christ himself could appear in front of you,

If you can produce hime, we''l listen.

and

Post by Bob
tell you everything there is to know about your past, and your future,
and you would still claim he was a fake, and that somebody somewhere had
given him that information.

It's not what people say, it's what they can prove. You can't prove that Jesus was a real person.

Post by Bob
Long story short, I'm not going to let you waste any of my time.

But you are wasting your time trying to get us to believe in what you have no evidence for.

Post by Bob
I'm not trying to convince you that evolution is on its way out the
door, and
creationism is here to stay.

Good, because that would just be more of the same bullshit you pile on every day.

Post by Bob
I don't really care what you believe.

Then shut up about here. Go discuss it with somebody who actually believes your nonsense.

Post by Bob
Think about it: why else would the list of scientists and college
professors that publicly signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism be
continuously growing larger?

How many of them are professionals in the
fields of biology and paleontology?

Do you not know how to count?
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Do you? If you did, you would realize that out of 23 pages of names, the overwhelming majority, are not in biology or paleontology. Lots of chemists, vets, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, but only about 100 of the people on those pages have any connection to biology or paleontology, in fact, I didn't see a single one for paleontology.

Like everything else that comes from the assholes at the Discovery Institute, where they have never discovered anything other than how to make more shit up.

You still have nothing, and now you have almost nobody because you linked to a list of people that wouldn't know DNA from IRA.

That's why we keep rejecting your so-called evidence. Because it is not evidence in any real sense. It's still god of the gaps and it's still nonsense.

As I have told you and the other idiots many times, if any of this crap you keep wanting us to see were actually true, it would make international news. You would not be hearing about it from YouTube, you would hear about it from AP or UPI, or another major news wire.

But it doesn't show up there, because none of it is science and none of it is real.

You still have nothing. That's bercause there is nothing for you to get, there is nothing there.

PROVE othrewise.

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-15 19:33:19 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation...

No, you're wrong.

No, he's right

Post by Bob
The research being done presently supports creationism, while
simultaneously refuting evolution.

Bull shit. Creationism is a proven Fantasy. Evolution is a proven fact.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Post for us the documentation - not
a youtube video - of this "research"

Just admit that you're too lazy, or too scared, or both, to watch any of
the videos I've posted links to that have anything to do with "refuting
evolution".

Why would anyone want to watch a con job? Go hawk your books and DVDs
elsewhere.

Post by Bob
Think about it: why else would the list of scientists and college
professors that publicly signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism be
continuously growing larger?

They're not scientists or college professors, they're religious theists
and con artists.

Learn the _truth_, start here:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-15 22:19:40 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation...

No, you're wrong.
The research being done presently supports creationism, while
simultaneously refuting evolution.

Post for us the documentation - not
a youtube video - of this "research"

Just admit that you're too lazy, or too scared, or both, to watch any of
the videos I've posted links to that have anything to do with "refuting
evolution".

You want us to lie like you do? Some of us have watched these videos, and that's why nobody does much anymore. Thgey are all from people who do not seem to have much grasp on science, or they do have a grasp of science, but they also work for religious propaganda factories like the Discovery Institute and have sold their academic souls.
No science comes from these people, they are apologists with a conclusion trying to find things they can twist into explanations for their beliefs.

Post by Bob
Think about it: why else would the list of scientists and college
professors that publicly signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism be
continuously growing larger?

Documentation of how much they are growing by? Just because you get a couple more nutters to join your side and reject real science, doesn't make them any more than that, a few nutters. I'd take your word for it, but you always lie, so what's the point?

If it were real science, it would make the news, not a youtube video.
There would be a peer review of scientific research.
You still have nothing.
Why continue the charade?

t***@gmail.com

2016-10-15 22:22:26 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
You want us to lie

Yes, I am aware when you say we you speak for most of the posters here, as they are you.

Ted&Alice

2016-10-15 15:29:56 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation...

No, you're wrong.

No, you're a moron.

Davej

2016-10-15 15:36:54 UTC

Post by Bob
[...]
You haven't been watching the videos, otherwise you would
know what you're talking about.

Nobody watches your stupid videos Bob. Nobody is going to
waste the time watching random YouTube nonsense.

default

2016-10-15 15:38:21 UTC

Post by Davej

Post by Bob
[...]
You haven't been watching the videos, otherwise you would
know what you're talking about.

Nobody watches your stupid videos Bob. Nobody is going to
waste the time watching random YouTube nonsense.

Really.

Davej

2016-10-15 16:20:14 UTC

Post by Bob
[...]
The research being done presently supports creationism,
while simultaneously refuting evolution.

No such research is being done.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-15 16:38:00 UTC

Post by Davej

Post by Bob
[...]
The research being done presently supports creationism,
while simultaneously refuting evolution.

No such research is being done.

The liar doesn't even know what this "research" is supposed to be.
He's just repeating what even bigger liars have preached .

b***@m.nu

2016-10-15 18:42:42 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation...

No, you're wrong.
The research being done presently supports creationism, while simultaneously
refuting evolution.
You haven't been watching the videos, otherwise you would know what
you're talking about.

uhh you dont realize that the religous nutjobs on you tube will say
anything that other theists will believe. They make money when idiots
like you watch crap like that. It is pretty funny when you say and do
stuff that shows how incredibly stupid you are.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-15 13:53:25 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

He went from being just plain stupid, to outright lying a loooooong
time ago.

Andrew

2016-10-15 16:09:18 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

Vincent Maycock

2016-10-15 16:22:02 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

DNA - probably evolved from RNA.

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

Andrew

2016-10-15 17:28:39 UTC

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

DNA - probably evolved from RNA.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

They finally conclude that the *origin* of DNA remains
such a ""problem"" that it is "largely ignored, with few
exceptions." ^^^^^^

"Up to now, most scientists interested in the studying
of DNA replication have not been apparently concerned
by the problem of the origin and evolution of this
central cellular mechanism. The problem of the origin
of DNA is..largely ignored, with few exceptions."
~ your link (above)

Folks, there is no Darwinian pathway for the origin
of DNA ~except~ in the realm of fantasy.

This points to the necessity of an intelligent
causation.

No other way folks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But wait!

Let's just suppose that the DNA molecule did
evolve somehow.

What would you have? It would be like a blank
book that had no words it it.

Because the molecule itself is like a substrate
that has the capacity to hold a vast amount of
information.

Without information, the molecule has no
function of purpose.

What good is a book that has nothing but
empty pages?

Vincent Maycock

2016-10-15 19:35:39 UTC

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

DNA - probably evolved from RNA.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

They finally conclude that the *origin* of DNA remains
such a ""problem"" that it is "largely ignored, with few
exceptions." ^^^^^^

Yeah, so if there are "few" exceptions, that means there *were
exceptions," which means the problem isn't being ignored by everyone.

Post by Andrew
"Up to now, most scientists interested in the studying

^^^^^^
Which means there are *some* scientists who are concerned with the
"origin and evolution of DNA replication."

Post by Andrew
of DNA replication have not been apparently concerned
by the problem of the origin and evolution of this
central cellular mechanism. The problem of the origin
of DNA is..largely ignored, with few exceptions."
~ your link (above)

You just quoted that part.

Post by Andrew
Folks, there is no Darwinian pathway for the origin
of DNA ~except~ in the realm of fantasy.

An unsolved problem does not mean "God."

Folks, imagine that Andrew's car doesn't start; since he can't solve
the problem, he assumes that God caused his car to break down and
believes he's proven the existence of God. Yes, folks, that's the
stupidity of using Andrew's "God of the Gaps" approach to science.

These authors think that viruses may have been involved in the origin
of DNA:

"We review all of them here, with more emphasis on recent proposals
suggesting that viruses have played a major role in the origin and
evolution of the DNA replication proteins and possibly of DNA itself.

There's nothing fantastic about that; what *is* a fantasy, folks, is
the idea that God reached a magic finger into the goo and produced a
living cell!

You see, there is no Intelligent Design pathway for the origin of DNA.

Post by Andrew
This points to the necessity of an intelligent
causation.
No other way folks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But wait!
Let's just suppose that the DNA molecule did
evolve somehow.
What would you have? It would be like a blank
book that had no words it it.

No, it would have whatever information there was in the RNA from which
the DNA seems to have evolved.

Post by Andrew
Because the molecule itself is like a substrate
that has the capacity to hold a vast amount of
information.

Obviously with a simpler beginning, there would be no need to hold
vast amounts of information.

Post by Andrew
Without information, the molecule has no
function of purpose.
What good is a book that has nothing but
empty pages?

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-15 22:33:04 UTC

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

DNA - probably evolved from RNA.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

They finally conclude that the *origin* of DNA remains
such a ""problem"" that it is "largely ignored, with few
exceptions." ^^^^^^
"Up to now, most scientists interested in the studying
of DNA replication have not been apparently concerned
by the problem of the origin and evolution of this
central cellular mechanism. The problem of the origin
of DNA is..largely ignored, with few exceptions."
~ your link (above)
Folks, there is no Darwinian pathway for the origin
of DNA ~except~ in the realm of fantasy.
This points to the necessity of an intelligent
causation.
No other way folks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But wait!
Let's just suppose that the DNA molecule did
evolve somehow.
What would you have? It would be like a blank
book that had no words it it.
Because the molecule itself is like a substrate
that has the capacity to hold a vast amount of
information.
Without information, the molecule has no
function of purpose.
What good is a book that has nothing but
empty pages?

About as good as any creationist "science."
It would still be worth more than the bible.

You are still lying and you still have nothing.

Mitchell Holman

2016-10-15 17:13:55 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation, except the research that was
"invented" by the theists, but it wasnt actually research because all
they did were read parts of the bible which is a fairy tale anyway.
So if you feel that there is actual evidence then please present it
and all sources where you got your material from

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

There is nothing inexplicable about it.

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

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-
long-before-life-itself/

Andrew

2016-10-15 17:43:36 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation, except the research that was
"invented" by the theists, but it wasnt actually research because all
they did were read parts of the bible which is a fairy tale anyway.
So if you feel that there is actual evidence then please present it
and all sources where you got your material from

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

There is nothing inexplicable about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication

This talks about the origin of its replication, not of
the molecule itself.

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-15 19:49:48 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching
religous nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation, except the research that
was "invented" by the theists, but it wasnt actually research
because all they did were read parts of the bible which is a fairy
tale anyway. So if you feel that there is actual evidence then
please present it and all sources where you got your material from

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

There is nothing inexplicable about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication

This talks about the origin of its replication, not of
the molecule itself.

Start here:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

< 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://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., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-15 19:54:48 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching
religous nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation, except the research that
was "invented" by the theists, but it wasnt actually research
because all they did were read parts of the bible which is a fairy
tale anyway. So if you feel that there is actual evidence then
please present it and all sources where you got your material from

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

There is nothing inexplicable about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication

This talks about the origin of its replication, not of
the molecule itself.

You want more??? Have at it:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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>

Gordon

2016-10-15 21:30:30 UTC

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
<snip>

Post by W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
"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.

I'm not trying to prove anything or stir up a debate but I would like
to understand how atheists and agnostics manage to accept the idea
that the multiverse just popped into existence with no form of
intelligence involved.

And, while on this topic, how do these people regard the idea that
this cosmic intelligence might exist as in a structure such as quantum
entangled sub-atomic particles that function somewhat like the
synapses of our brain? Such an array of quantum entangled particles
could communicate across the entire multiverse, instantly, and could
have a very precise control of all that is going on, or ever has
happened. Gordon

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-15 23:55:05 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
<snip>

It's called, "Science, physics, mathamatics, reasearch".

Post by Gordon
And, while on this topic, how do these people regard the idea that
this cosmic intelligence might exist as in a structure such as quantum
entangled sub-atomic particles that function somewhat like the
synapses of our brain? Such an array of quantum entangled particles
could communicate across the entire multiverse, instantly, and could
have a very precise control of all that is going on, or ever has
happened. Gordon

That's called, "A con game".

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-16 00:21:31 UTC

Post by W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:55:05 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
<snip>

It's called, "Science, physics, mathamatics, reasearch".

That's called, "A con game".

He's just being deliberately stupid.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-16 00:20:54 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
<snip>

You already know that this is nothing to do with atheism or
agnosticism - and that this is a dishonest caricature of one of the
proposed scenarios which break no known laws of physics.

What's wrong with you?

Post by Gordon
And, while on this topic, how do these people regard the idea that
this cosmic intelligence might exist as in a structure such as quantum

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT, IMBECILE - AND NO REASON EVEN TO SUGGEST
IT APART FROM RELIGIOUS BRAINWASHING.

But then you already know this.

Post by Gordon
entangled sub-atomic particles that function somewhat like the
synapses of our brain? Such an array of quantum entangled particles
could communicate across the entire multiverse, instantly, and could
have a very precise control of all that is going on, or ever has
happened.

Idiot.

Post by Gordon
Gordon

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 00:37:16 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
<snip>

Nobody said it just popped into existence. Lie number 1.
You have not given any evidence that an intelligence that could have "created" the universe actually exists.

Might exist, but no evidence for such existence exists.

Still waiting on any evidence of your imaginary creator or any of the other nonsense you don't seem to understand.

Jeanne Douglas

2016-10-16 08:07:30 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
<snip>

Simple. We're neither stupid nor insane.

--
JD

"It's not even that the man lies; it's more like he
rejects the idea that the point of language is to
describe reality."--Desi Lydic, TDS on Trump

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-15 22:30:50 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation, except the research that was
"invented" by the theists, but it wasnt actually research because all
they did were read parts of the bible which is a fairy tale anyway.
So if you feel that there is actual evidence then please present it
and all sources where you got your material from

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

There is nothing inexplicable about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-
long-before-life-itself/

Funny how you never find such stories regarding the creationist "science."
If any of this creationist shit had any relationship to real science, it would make the news. It happens that all the creationists have is bullshit. No science, no evidence, and no proof of anything other than imagination.

t***@gmail.com

2016-10-15 22:33:34 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
No science, no evidence, and no proof of anything other than imagination.

So if deity put a new creature here that has never been here before, would that falsify your viewpoint?

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 00:45:32 UTC

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Cloud Hobbit
No science, no evidence, and no proof of anything other than imagination.

So if deity put a new creature here that has never been here before, would that falsify your viewpoint?

What deity?

99% of every living thing on earth that has ever lived is not extinct, so new creatures come and go all the time. Mostly they go, every year about 1000 more species go extinct and with no interference from man.

The only thing that will ever change my viewpoint is God making a world-wide announcement that explains his existence and what if anything he might expect from us.

Without that, you have what you will always have, nothing but imagination.

Andrew

2016-10-16 00:35:03 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation, except the research that was
"invented" by the theists, but it wasnt actually research because all
they did were read parts of the bible which is a fairy tale anyway.
So if you feel that there is actual evidence then please present it
and all sources where you got your material from

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

There is nothing inexplicable about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication

Does not deal with the issue - origin of DNA.

Post by Mitchell Holman
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-

Funny how you never find such stories regarding the creationist "science."

Because they reject fantasy. Did you not see the fantasy in the above?

That is because you accept it..because it accords with your deception.

You are definitely deceived.

*Most* definitely!

Amen!

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 00:54:12 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

dude do you even know what you are talking about?
No research has EVER supported creation, except the research that was
"invented" by the theists, but it wasnt actually research because all
they did were read parts of the bible which is a fairy tale anyway.
So if you feel that there is actual evidence then please present it
and all sources where you got your material from

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

There is nothing inexplicable about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication

Does not deal with the issue - origin of DNA.

Post by Mitchell Holman
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-

Funny how you never find such stories regarding the creationist "science."

Because they reject fantasy. Did you not see the fantasy in the above?

They live in a fantasy world where gods send bears to eat children and imaginary slaves get freed from a place they never were to go on a trek that never happened.

Post by Andrew
That is because you accept it..because it accords with your deception.

I am not involved in any deception. What is your idea about why science would be so accurate about everything else, but deceptive about evolution or any of the nonsense proven to be nonsense from the bible?

Post by Andrew
You are definitely deceived.
*Most* definitely!
Amen!

You are definitely a liar or a fool.
You still have nothing.

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-16 04:53:54 UTC

"Andrew86" <***@Lying.Bozo> Defecated again:

Tell the truth, Andrew86!!!

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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>

b***@m.nu

2016-10-15 18:44:30 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

Oh Oh you said it, so it must be correct

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-15 19:35:42 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

Oh Oh you said it, so it must be correctr

It's a deliberate lie, on his part.

He's been given simplified versions of the relevant abiogenesis
research.

Even if they're too hard for his to follow (they shouldn't be), he
knows these explanations exist.

So what does he imagine he achieves by repeating the same lie over and
over again?

All it does, is tell us just how mentally ill he is.

Andrew

2016-10-16 00:40:33 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

Oh Oh you said it, so it must be correct

No, not because I said it.

But please note, no one here is able
to refute the claim..using only truth.

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 02:58:09 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

Oh Oh you said it, so it must be correct

No, not because I said it.
But please note, no one here is able
to refute the claim..using only truth.

Unexplained does not mean God, it just means we have not uncovered the reason
or explanation that fits all the facts. We have not found all the facts is not the same as god did it and it does not follow.

There is evidence that I know you have had the chance to read that explains how scientists think DNA may have been created, but without all the facts, they don't claim it to be a literal fact. No one is being deceived by science. That's how it works. Examine whatever evidence there is and formulate an explanation that conforms to the facts.

It's not what you and the other creationist retards do, which is just pull it out your ass.

You know what you have?
Still nothing.

Andrew

2016-10-16 10:15:21 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

DNA - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.

Oh Oh you said it, so it must be correct

No, not because I said it.
But please note, no one here is able
to refute the claim..using only truth.

Unexplained does not mean God, it

The evidence tells us who did it. It was. .

"The single mightiest entity in the universe."
~ "Cloud Hobbit"

Post by Cloud Hobbit
just means we have not uncovered the reason
or explanation that fits all the facts.

There is no naturalistic origin of DNA that is loaded
with massive amount of bio-information.

There was an intelligent causation as to its origin.

I think you know who it was. It obviously was. .

"The single mightiest entity in the universe."
~ "Cloud Hobbit"

Yes.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
We have not found all the facts is not the same as god did it and it does not follow.
There is evidence that I know you have had the chance to read that explains how scientists think
DNA may have been created,

No other way.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
but without all the facts, they don't claim it to be a literal fact. No one is being deceived by science.
That's how it works. Examine whatever evidence there is and formulate an explanation that conforms
to the facts.

Exactly! Now you've got it.

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-16 10:31:31 UTC

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in news:JYudnUuq7o6lzp7FnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-16 05:14:41 UTC

"Andrew86" <***@Lying.Bozo> Pissed in his pants, again:

Consider yourself refuted, Andrew86:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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>

harry k

2016-10-15 17:47:53 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

Actually the research shows that the creation model is FOS. I is shown to be so through many different fields of science, biology, geology, astronomy and numberous other 'ologies'.

Wake up an smell the stink coming off your favorite sites.

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-15 18:10:36 UTC

Post by harry k

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

Actually the research shows that the creation model is FOS. I is shown to
be so through many different fields of science, biology, geology, astronomy
and numberous other 'ologies'.
Wake up an smell the stink coming off your favorite sites.

"You get an ology, you're a scientist" - Maureen Lipman

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-15 22:00:21 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
until you can do some actual research instead of watching religous
nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all

Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.

There is no legitimate research that shows any evidence whatsoever of the creation model. If there was, it would have made the news everywhere. Why do you idiots not understand that? Any legitimate evidence for your biblical nonsense would make world wide news, what with the number of Christians in the world and the incentive for reporters to get a scoop.

The only obvious conclusion is that you know you are all liars.

t***@gmail.com

2016-10-15 22:02:00 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
The only obvious conclusion is that you know you are all liars.

The only obvious liar here is you with your sockpuppetry.

Every post you make is thusly deceptive in nature by default.

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 00:40:12 UTC

Post by t***@gmail.com

Post by Cloud Hobbit
The only obvious conclusion is that you know you are all liars.

The only obvious liar here is you with your sockpuppetry.
Every post you make is thusly deceptive in nature by default.

I have no sockpuppets. I use a name other than my own because I don't want idiots like you contacting me.

Nothing I have ever posted is in the least bit deceptive and you are a nut case, and therefore everything you post is nuts.

Andrew

2016-10-16 10:16:21 UTC

Nothing I have ever posted is in the least bit deceptive.

You actually believe that because you have deceived
yourself.

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-16 10:30:10 UTC

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in news:JvqdnXPl6J3pzp7FnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-14 14:09:45 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch-creationist-prove-Darwin-is-right/

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

John Locke

2016-10-14 15:57:49 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

Answerers in Genesis ?? A horde of religious apologists trying to
inject religious hokus pokus into nature.

Biology makes sense because we have a solid foundation of evolutionary
science which has been tested and proven to be a fact of nature. All
the whining, moaning and twisting of facts by religious whack jobs
won't change that fact.

Andrew

2016-10-15 16:09:10 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

Biology makes sense because we have a solid foundation
of evolutionary science which has been tested and proven
to be a fact of nature.

There is no origin of biology apart from a Creation.

It is even a Law of Science - the Law of Biogenesis.

It all points to Creation by a most awesome Creator.

Glory to His name forever and ever, amen.

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-15 19:58:20 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch-creationists-make-fools-of-themselves/

Biology makes sense because we have a solid foundation
of evolutionary science which has been tested and proven
to be a fact of nature.

There is no origin of biology apart from a Creation.
It is even a Law of Science - the Law of Biogenesis.
It all points to Creation by a most awesome Creator.
Glory to His name forever and ever, amen.

Your "bible" pages are too stiff to be used as toilet paper:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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

2016-10-15 22:24:59 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

Biology makes sense because we have a solid foundation
of evolutionary science which has been tested and proven
to be a fact of nature.

There is no origin of biology apart from a Creation.

An opinion you get to have. It is unfortunately for you completely unsupported by science.

Post by Andrew
It is even a Law of Science - the Law of Biogenesis.
It all points to Creation by a most awesome Creator.
Glory to His name forever and ever, amen.

There is no science that supports such a view. You are lying, just like the people who lied to you and got you to believe that any of this is real or scientific.

There is no creator as far as anybody can prove.

There is no science that supports any biblical nonsense, in fact, the bible has been shown to be false countless times.
You have been shown to be a liar countless times.
You still have nothing.

Andrew

2016-10-16 00:35:20 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

Biology makes sense because we have a solid foundation
of evolutionary science which has been tested and proven
to be a fact of nature.

There is no origin of biology apart from a Creation.

An opinion you get to have. It is unfortunately for you completely unsupported by science.

Post by Andrew
It is even a Law of Science - the Law of Biogenesis.
It all points to Creation by a most awesome Creator.
Glory to His name forever and ever, amen.

There is no science that supports such a view.

All true science supports such a view. *All* of it.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
You are lying,

You are deceived.

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 01:00:29 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

Biology makes sense because we have a solid foundation
of evolutionary science which has been tested and proven
to be a fact of nature.

There is no origin of biology apart from a Creation.

An opinion you get to have. It is unfortunately for you completely unsupported by science.

Post by Andrew
It is even a Law of Science - the Law of Biogenesis.
It all points to Creation by a most awesome Creator.
Glory to His name forever and ever, amen.

There is no science that supports such a view.

All true science supports such a view. *All* of it.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
You are lying,

You are deceived.

Then let me be deceived in peace. If god has a problem with my beliefs, LET HIM TELL ME NOT YOU.

Nobody is ever going to think that he would have appointed a piece of shit like you to spread the word. There is no reason why an omnipotent being would ever need anybody to spread the word. he could just say "Listen up!" "I am god." The fact that you can understand me no matter what language you speak is proof that I am God. If you need more, let me put my son's face on Mt. Rushmore, there, satisfied? Anyway here's some things I want you to do so I won't kill you all again."

Andrew

2016-10-16 10:13:23 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

Biology makes sense because we have a solid foundation
of evolutionary science which has been tested and proven
to be a fact of nature.

There is no origin of biology apart from a Creation.

An opinion you get to have. It is unfortunately for you completely unsupported by science.

Post by Andrew
It is even a Law of Science - the Law of Biogenesis.
It all points to Creation by a most awesome Creator.
Glory to His name forever and ever, amen.

There is no science that supports such a view.

All true science supports such a view. *All* of it.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
You are lying,

You are deceived.

-
- Then let me be deceived in peace.

"Those who reject Me are like the restless
sea, which is never still
but continually churns up mire and dirt.
There is no peace for the wicked,"
says my God." ~ Isaiah 57:20,21

- If god has a problem with my beliefs, LET HIM TELL ME NOT YOU.

Are you sure?

Do you understand what you are asking?

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-16 10:33:25 UTC

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in news:wbadncHaW59fz57FnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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

2016-10-16 01:42:55 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

Biology makes sense because we have a solid foundation
of evolutionary science which has been tested and proven
to be a fact of nature.

There is no origin of biology apart from a Creation.

An opinion you get to have. It is unfortunately for you completely unsupported by science.

Post by Andrew
It is even a Law of Science - the Law of Biogenesis.
It all points to Creation by a most awesome Creator.
Glory to His name forever and ever, amen.

There is no science that supports such a view.

All true science supports such a view. *All* of it.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
You are lying,

You are deceived.

Possibly, but you are still lying. No science of any branch supports that view.
Produce one scientific, peer reviewed paper, that says so.

Andrew

2016-10-16 10:12:42 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

Biology makes sense because we have a solid foundation
of evolutionary science which has been tested and proven
to be a fact of nature.

There is no origin of biology apart from a Creation.

An opinion you get to have. It is unfortunately for you
completely unsupported by science.

Post by Andrew
It is even a Law of Science - the Law of Biogenesis.
It all points to Creation by a most awesome Creator.
Glory to His name forever and ever, amen.

There is no science that supports such a view.

All true science supports such a view. *All* of it.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
You are lying,

You are deceived.

Possibly,

Yes.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
No science of any branch supports that view.
Produce one scientific, peer reviewed paper,
that says so.

Read it and respond with facts and not insults.

https://www.trueorigin.org/abio.php

If you cannot, then it is positive evidence
that you are willingly deceived.

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-16 10:34:19 UTC

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in news:zrCdnd-I04kEz57FnZ2dnUU7-***@earthlink.com:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-16 05:02:55 UTC

"Andrew86" <***@Lying.Bozo> Defecates in public, again:

Please tell me you don't actually believe your own bull shit, Andrew86!!!

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

<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://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>

Ted&Alice

2016-10-15 13:25:40 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

The subject should say "evolution" instead of "Darwin".

BTW, nobody ever watches any of your idiotic videos.

Africa-Has-No-Boss

2016-10-15 18:10:35 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

if Darwin was still alive I would sue him. He messed up my career in Biology.
In elementary school I was so good at Biology until I heard that man descended from apes. I swear this threw a great deal of confusion over my young mind to the point of coming to detest "science" altogether.

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 00:03:35 UTC

Post by Africa-Has-No-Boss

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

So you blame Darwin for you being stupid.

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-15 21:52:19 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

NO. Biology only makes sense with Darwin.

Gordon

2016-10-15 21:56:41 UTC

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

NO. Biology only makes sense with Darwin.

True, Darwin seems to have gotten things figured out reasonably well
but I still wonder if there was some form of cosmic intelligence
involved. This cosmic intelligence could have managed the evolutionary
processes such as Darwin's theory describes. The only difference would
be that random chance was actually a process of intelligent
intervention. Gordon

Christopher A. Lee

2016-10-15 22:25:25 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

NO. Biology only makes sense with Darwin.

True, Darwin seems to have gotten things figured out reasonably well
but I still wonder if there was some form of cosmic intelligence
involved.

Only because you were brainwashed to believe in e - because that is
the only reason even to suggest it.

Post by Gordon
This cosmic intelligence could have managed the evolutionary
processes such as Darwin's theory describes. The only difference would
be that random chance was actually a process of intelligent
intervention.

And if pigs had wings....

Post by Gordon
Gordon

You don't know why Darwin lost his faith and became an agnostic, do
you?

Why not just say "hey. world. I'm a moron"?

W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*

2016-10-15 23:56:41 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

NO. Biology only makes sense with Darwin.

Then the "intelligence" has made some awful mistakes, or isn't all
powerful.

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

Ted&Alice

2016-10-16 08:48:13 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

NO. Biology only makes sense with Darwin.

Your outlook is too narrow, for one thing. Intelligence is itself a product
of evolution. There's no rational justification to assume that it's the
means God used to create the universe. As always, people construct their
gods in their own images because of the paucity of their imaginations. If
such a creator does exist, its power might well exceed intelligence in the
same way that intelligence exceeds the power of a speck of dust.

The same sort of short-sighted stupidity is what leads people to speculate
that extraterrestrial technological beings would resemble primates.

Cloud Hobbit

2016-10-16 02:51:08 UTC

Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/46DFBqg1Vos

It's another crackpot video from a crackpot organization, Answers in Genesis, which advocates a literal interpretation of the bible.

The crackpot they get to try and persuade us is Dr. david menton, who shold be named David Mental.
http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-liar.html

He's number 270 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

He most definitely does not a resume, that would indicate he has done any work in the field of evolutionary biology.

He most certainly does not represent mainstream scientific thinking.

Why would you use a crackpot video narrated by a crackpot to try and sway our beliefs? Do you really have such a poor understandig ofscience, that you don't understand why creationism is false?

You still have nothing.

Joe Bruno

2016-10-16 11:38:02 UTC