Discussion:
Intelligent Design and the Fall of Darwinism (Part 1 of 3)
(too old to reply)
Bob
2017-04-07 01:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message

Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-07 02:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.youtube.com/watch-Bob-inventing-new-lies-and-bull-shit/
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-07 02:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob <***@null.null> wrote in news:oc6q9a$ogb$***@gioia.aioe.org:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>



<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>



<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
John Locke
2017-04-07 15:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? You've gotta be kidding. This guy spent years getting a
Masters in cell biology and then shot himself in the foot trying to
re-invent nature and inject ID snake oil into bilogical evolution.
What a waste of an education. And there goes any chance of getting a
credible research position. Pathetic.
Bob
2017-04-07 15:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the only
thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.

Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what you're
really saying is you agree with the video? You think everything said in
the video is true. You just don't know how to come right out and
actually say it.

It's all good...
Tim
2017-04-07 16:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the only
thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what you're
really saying is you agree with the video? You think everything said in
the video is true. You just don't know how to come right out and
actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
aaa
2017-04-08 05:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-08 11:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Bull shit! Of course Evolution has been tested and verified. It works
when making predictions, ID and creationism don't work in any way.
Stop lying and educate yourself:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
aaa
2017-04-08 13:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Bull shit! Of course Evolution has been tested and verified. It works
when making predictions, ID and creationism don't work in any way.
No, you are bullshitting. Evolution is entirely an explanation after the
discovery of biology science. It has nothing scientific on its own. It's
just a stupid imaginary theory with no corporeal form. The prediction
isn't made by evolution. It's made by biology science alone. To claim
it's predicted by evolution is plagiarism in the most naked form.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-08 15:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Bull shit! Of course Evolution has been tested and verified. It works
when making predictions, ID and creationism don't work in any way.
No, you are bullshitting. Evolution is entirely an explanation after the
discovery of biology science. It has nothing scientific on its own. It's
just a stupid imaginary theory with no corporeal form. The prediction
isn't made by evolution. It's made by biology science alone. To claim
it's predicted by evolution is plagiarism in the most naked form.
Bull shit. Educate yourself:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
aaa
2017-04-09 02:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Bull shit! Of course Evolution has been tested and verified. It works
when making predictions, ID and creationism don't work in any way.
No, you are bullshitting. Evolution is entirely an explanation after the
discovery of biology science. It has nothing scientific on its own. It's
just a stupid imaginary theory with no corporeal form. The prediction
isn't made by evolution. It's made by biology science alone. To claim
it's predicted by evolution is plagiarism in the most naked form.
snip.

Now you revert back to your stupid web signature with nothing more to
say. Why am I not surprised?
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-09 03:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how
to come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific
point of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Bull shit! Of course Evolution has been tested and verified. It
works when making predictions, ID and creationism don't work in any
No, you are bullshitting. Evolution is entirely an explanation after
the discovery of biology science. It has nothing scientific on its
own. It's just a stupid imaginary theory with no corporeal form. The
prediction isn't made by evolution. It's made by biology science
alone. To claim it's predicted by evolution is plagiarism in the
most naked form.
snip.
Now you revert back to your stupid web signature with nothing more to
say. Why am I not surprised?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-17 12:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Bull shit! Of course Evolution has been tested and verified. It works
when making predictions, ID and creationism don't work in any way.
No, you are bullshitting. Evolution is entirely an explanation after the
discovery of biology science. It has nothing scientific on its own. It's
just a stupid imaginary theory with no corporeal form. The prediction
isn't made by evolution. It's made by biology science alone. To claim
it's predicted by evolution is plagiarism in the most naked form.
Stop lying, aaashole.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-17 14:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:38:29 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Bull shit! Of course Evolution has been tested and verified. It works
when making predictions, ID and creationism don't work in any way.
No, you are bullshitting. Evolution is entirely an explanation after the
discovery of biology science. It has nothing scientific on its own. It's
just a stupid imaginary theory with no corporeal form. The prediction
isn't made by evolution. It's made by biology science alone. To claim
it's predicted by evolution is plagiarism in the most naked form.
Stop lying, aaashole.
That's all this asshole does = about us to our faces and about
objective facts.
Tim
2017-04-08 12:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Yes it has:

https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability

Now show us one from ID.
aaa
2017-04-08 14:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability
That's false testability. The theory of evolution can always be
explained with any kind of scientific data. That's because it's entirely
abstract and philosophical. There is nothing in evolution to contradict
with science because it is talking about life which is not what science
can explain or study. Whatever evolution claims, science can not
disagree. Whatever science discovers, evolution can always explain away
with its stupid abstract theory. The appearance of testability is
entirely man-made.
Post by Tim
Now show us one from ID.
There is never such need. Both evolution and ID are philosophical
theories of life that have nothing to do with science. Science can never
prove or falsify any of them. Your thinking is flawed because you don't
realize that evolution is philosophy instead of science.
Tim
2017-04-08 14:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability
That's false testability.
That's another one of your unevidenced assertions.
Post by aaa
The theory of evolution can always be
explained with any kind of scientific data.
Yes, that's why it's science.
Post by aaa
That's because it's entirely
abstract and philosophical.
Nope, it's a scientific theory based on observable evidence. That it has philosophical implications in no way, shape, or form makes it a philosophy nor abstract. You don't know what you are talking about.
Post by aaa
There is nothing in evolution to contradict
with science because it is talking about life which is not what science
can explain or study.
Nonsense. The scientific study of life is called biology. You don't know what you are talking about.
Post by aaa
Whatever evolution claims, science can not
disagree. Whatever science discovers, evolution can always explain away
with its stupid abstract theory. The appearance of testability is
entirely man-made.
It's a part of the scientific process. You just don't like the conclusions science leads to because they contradict your bible mythology.
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Now show us one from ID.
There is never such need.
There is so long as ID purports to be scientific, which it clearly does.
Post by aaa
Both evolution and ID are philosophical
theories of life that have nothing to do with science.
Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is pseudo-science.
Post by aaa
Science can never
prove or falsify any of them. Your thinking is flawed because you don't
realize that evolution is philosophy instead of science.
You don't know what you are talking about.
aaa
2017-04-09 04:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do
the only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything,
what you're really saying is you agree with the video? You
think everything said in the video is true. You just don't
know how to come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a
scientific point of view there is therefore nothing in ID to
refute.
Neither has evolution.
https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability
That's false testability.
That's another one of your unevidenced assertions.
The rest of my statement is the evidence. Apparently, it takes further
explanation for you to understand.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
The theory of evolution can always be explained with any kind of
scientific data.
Yes, that's why it's science.
No, it isn't. Science does not explain theory. Science explains the
natural world with evidence. You are taking it entirely backward. The
theory is only a man-made construction in the abstract human mind.
Science can neither observe it nor explain it. It's abstract and
philosophical. It's higher than science.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
That's because it's entirely abstract and philosophical.
Nope, it's a scientific theory based on observable evidence. That it
has philosophical implications in no way, shape, or form makes it a
philosophy nor abstract. You don't know what you are talking about.
This is why it confuses you. A scientific theory explains the physical
world. It's philosophical implication is limited to the physical world.
Still, the scientific evidence only demonstrates the truthfulness of the
scientific theory under certain condition. It does not prove the
scientific theory to be entirely true. The theory can always break down
whenever new information and new evidence is found. This is why
Newtonian physics has been proven wrong by the theory of relativity.

Now we clear that up, the actual point in here is that the theory of
evolution does not explain the physical world. It's a theory of life
that explains the intelligent life in this physical world. The
intelligence of life isn't physical. It can not be explained and
observed by science with scientific method. Therefore, the philosophical
implication of the theory of evolution is not limited to the physical
world. By trying to explain the intelligent life, evolution has made
itself a genuine philosophical theory instead.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
There is nothing in evolution to contradict with science because it
is talking about life which is not what science can explain or
study.
Nonsense. The scientific study of life is called biology. You don't
know what you are talking about.
False. There is absolutely no scientific study of life to begin with.
Life is entirely a philosophical subject that is unexplainable by
science. Biology isn't a study of life. Biology is a study of living
organisms. Its focus is not on life. Its focus is on the biological
function of life. Life and the biological function of life are entirely
different things.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Whatever evolution claims, science can not disagree. Whatever
science discovers, evolution can always explain away with its
stupid abstract theory. The appearance of testability is entirely
man-made.
It's a part of the scientific process. You just don't like the
conclusions science leads to because they contradict your bible
mythology.
Your lack of philosophical understanding of the scientific study is why
you can make such stupid mistake. You have no clear understanding about
the difference between science and philosophy. That's why you have
mistaken the philosophical theory of life by the name of evolution as a
scientific theory like the theory of gravity instead. The theory of
gravity is scientific because it does not study life. The theory of
evolution is philosophical because it does study life, or at least it
pretends to.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Now show us one from ID.
There is never such need.
There is so long as ID purports to be scientific, which it clearly does.
No. I would disagree with ID if it did. ID is a better philosophical
theory of life than evolution. It does not have to degrade itself into
science. Science can never explain life. Only philosophy can.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Both evolution and ID are philosophical theories of life that have
nothing to do with science.
Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is pseudo-science.
No. Evolution is a false philosophical theory of life. ID is always
better than evolution. You are only making a stupid mistake by mistaking
them both as having anything to do with science. They are all
philosophical which is always greater and more superior than scientific.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Science can never prove or falsify any of them. Your thinking is
flawed because you don't realize that evolution is philosophy
instead of science.
You don't know what you are talking about.
But I do.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-09 04:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do
the only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything,
what you're really saying is you agree with the video? You
think everything said in the video is true. You just don't
know how to come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a
scientific point of view there is therefore nothing in ID to
refute.
Neither has evolution.
https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability
That's false testability.
That's another one of your unevidenced assertions.
The rest of my statement is the evidence. Apparently, it takes further
explanation for you to understand.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
The theory of evolution can always be explained with any kind of
scientific data.
Yes, that's why it's science.
No, it isn't. Science does not explain theory. Science explains the
natural world with evidence. You are taking it entirely backward. The
theory is only a man-made construction in the abstract human mind.
Science can neither observe it nor explain it. It's abstract and
philosophical. It's higher than science.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
That's because it's entirely abstract and philosophical.
Nope, it's a scientific theory based on observable evidence. That it
has philosophical implications in no way, shape, or form makes it a
philosophy nor abstract. You don't know what you are talking about.
This is why it confuses you. A scientific theory explains the physical
world. It's philosophical implication is limited to the physical world.
Still, the scientific evidence only demonstrates the truthfulness of the
scientific theory under certain condition. It does not prove the
scientific theory to be entirely true. The theory can always break down
whenever new information and new evidence is found. This is why
Newtonian physics has been proven wrong by the theory of relativity.
Now we clear that up, the actual point in here is that the theory of
evolution does not explain the physical world. It's a theory of life
that explains the intelligent life in this physical world. The
intelligence of life isn't physical. It can not be explained and
observed by science with scientific method. Therefore, the philosophical
implication of the theory of evolution is not limited to the physical
world. By trying to explain the intelligent life, evolution has made
itself a genuine philosophical theory instead.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
There is nothing in evolution to contradict with science because it
is talking about life which is not what science can explain or
study.
Nonsense. The scientific study of life is called biology. You don't
know what you are talking about.
False. There is absolutely no scientific study of life to begin with.
Life is entirely a philosophical subject that is unexplainable by
science. Biology isn't a study of life. Biology is a study of living
organisms. Its focus is not on life. Its focus is on the biological
function of life. Life and the biological function of life are entirely
different things.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Whatever evolution claims, science can not disagree. Whatever
science discovers, evolution can always explain away with its
stupid abstract theory. The appearance of testability is entirely
man-made.
It's a part of the scientific process. You just don't like the
conclusions science leads to because they contradict your bible
mythology.
Your lack of philosophical understanding of the scientific study is why
you can make such stupid mistake. You have no clear understanding about
the difference between science and philosophy. That's why you have
mistaken the philosophical theory of life by the name of evolution as a
scientific theory like the theory of gravity instead. The theory of
gravity is scientific because it does not study life. The theory of
evolution is philosophical because it does study life, or at least it
pretends to.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Now show us one from ID.
There is never such need.
There is so long as ID purports to be scientific, which it clearly does.
No. I would disagree with ID if it did. ID is a better philosophical
theory of life than evolution. It does not have to degrade itself into
science. Science can never explain life. Only philosophy can.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Both evolution and ID are philosophical theories of life that have
nothing to do with science.
Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is pseudo-science.
No. Evolution is a false philosophical theory of life. ID is always
better than evolution. You are only making a stupid mistake by mistaking
them both as having anything to do with science. They are all
philosophical which is always greater and more superior than scientific.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Science can never prove or falsify any of them. Your thinking is
flawed because you don't realize that evolution is philosophy
instead of science.
You don't know what you are talking about.
But I do.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-08 15:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability
That's false testability. The theory of evolution can always be
explained with any kind of scientific data. That's because it's entirely
abstract and philosophical. There is nothing in evolution to contradict
with science because it is talking about life which is not what science
can explain or study. Whatever evolution claims, science can not
disagree. Whatever science discovers, evolution can always explain away
with its stupid abstract theory. The appearance of testability is
entirely man-made.
Post by Tim
Now show us one from ID.
There is never such need. Both evolution and ID are philosophical
theories of life that have nothing to do with science. Science can never
prove or falsify any of them. Your thinking is flawed because you don't
realize that evolution is philosophy instead of science.
ID is crap philosophy:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
aaa
2017-04-09 04:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability
That's false testability. The theory of evolution can always be
explained with any kind of scientific data. That's because it's entirely
abstract and philosophical. There is nothing in evolution to contradict
with science because it is talking about life which is not what science
can explain or study. Whatever evolution claims, science can not
disagree. Whatever science discovers, evolution can always explain away
with its stupid abstract theory. The appearance of testability is
entirely man-made.
Post by Tim
Now show us one from ID.
There is never such need. Both evolution and ID are philosophical
theories of life that have nothing to do with science. Science can never
prove or falsify any of them. Your thinking is flawed because you don't
realize that evolution is philosophy instead of science.
<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-to-
creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
You aren't saying anything of value, Mr. web signature guy.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-09 04:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how
to come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific
point of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
https://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability
That's false testability. The theory of evolution can always be
explained with any kind of scientific data. That's because it's
entirely abstract and philosophical. There is nothing in evolution
to contradict with science because it is talking about life which is
not what science can explain or study. Whatever evolution claims,
science can not disagree. Whatever science discovers, evolution can
always explain away with its stupid abstract theory. The appearance
of testability is entirely man-made.
Post by Tim
Now show us one from ID.
There is never such need. Both evolution and ID are philosophical
theories of life that have nothing to do with science. Science can
never prove or falsify any of them. Your thinking is flawed because
you don't realize that evolution is philosophy instead of science.
<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-t
o- creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
You aren't saying anything of value, Mr. web signature guy.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-08 17:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and
even observed taking place.

Creationism, on the other hand..........
aaa
2017-04-09 04:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and
even observed taking place.
That's completely false. It's all political propaganda with no real
science in it. Evolution isn't science to begin with.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Creationism, on the other hand..........
On the other hand, Creationism is the real philosophy that science has
nothing to say to object.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-09 04:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and
even observed taking place.
That's completely false. It's all political propaganda with no real
science in it. Evolution isn't science to begin with.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Creationism, on the other hand..........
is shit crap!
Post by aaa
On the other hand, Creationism is the real philosophy that science has
nothing to say to object.
Creationism is wrong, a lie. Only Evolution is pure truth:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-09 12:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and
even observed taking place.
That's completely false. It's all political propaganda with no real
science in it. Evolution isn't science to begin with.
Evolution has been observed and documented:


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

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane
aaa
2017-04-09 15:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and
even observed taking place.
That's completely false. It's all political propaganda with no real
science in it. Evolution isn't science to begin with.
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science, you would
know that all those things are just junks done by people who have no
idea about the difference between science and philosophy. They don't
know what they are doing.
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane
Gerald
2017-04-09 15:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies. Here is the real story of creation, well
before the fables and lies of the Bible were dreamed up.

Gaia and Ouranos [Heavens] began the cycle of life that
eventually gave rise to a race of formidable Immortals know as
the Titans who in turn mated with one another to create Zeus
and the other more benevolent gods and goddesses.

Kronos and Rheia

Zeus is a son of Titans. The Titans are twelve children born to
of Ouranos and Gaia. They were the first Immortals to assume
the guise of human beings but they were not humane or in any
way human-like. Their reign as the dominate force on earth was
one of impropriety and deplorable excesses. Ouranos saw the
outrageous behavior of his children and gave them the name
Titans, which means Strainers or Stretchers. Ouranos foresaw
that they would eventually pay a heavy price for their
indulgences because they strained and stretched the bounds of
propriety and abused their seemingly limitless powers. Not all
of their deeds are recorded but it is clear that the most
outrageous of the Titan gods was the youngest, Kronos.

Ouranos was the first child of Gaia and she assumed that he
would be her companion and subordinate ... she was wrong.
Ouranos became more and more demanding until Gaia finally had
no choice but to enlist the assistance of her Titan children to
subdue him. Kronos was the only one to step forward and
confront Ouranos ... he attacked his father, mutilated his
manhood and took away his authority. Eventually Kronos became
as domineering as his father had been but his tyranny was not
destined to last. Gaia and Ouranos told Kronos of a prophecy in
which one of his sons would defeat him and become the new
master of heaven and earth.

Kronos did not understand that the prophecy that Gaia and
Ouranos had given him was not something he could avoid ... it
was his destiny and there was nothing he could do to change it.
From his home on the peaks of Mount Olympos, Kronos inflicted
his will on his brothers and sisters as well as the other
children of Gaia and Ouranos ... he thought his sovereignty
would be eternal. He married his sister Rheia and they began to
have children. In a vain attempt to thwart his destiny, Kronos
swallowed each of his children as soon as they were born.

The Birth of Zeus

After the birth and consumption of five children, Rheia began
to plot against Kronos. When the sixth child was born, Rheia
presented a stone to Kronos in place of the baby ... in his
arrogance and haste, Kronos swallowed the stone without
suspecting the ruse.

Kronos and Rheia
Rheia presenting the stone to Kronos.

Rheia named the infant Zeus and took him to the island of Crete
where she gave him to the semi-divine Kouretes of Mount Ida so
that he could be reared in secret. The Kouretes entrusted Zeus
to the Nymphs of Mount Ida who placed him in a cave and saw to
his nurture.

Kronos had no idea that Zeus had escaped his notice because the
Kouretes concealed Zeus's hiding place with carefully
orchestrated and clamorous demonstrations to drown out any
noise the infant made as he cried and made a ruckus. As the
years went by, the swallowed children inside Kronos began to
mature but could not escape from their father's entrails. Zeus
also matured and became a powerful young god dedicated to
freeing his siblings and punishing his father for his
outrageous behavior.

The Fight with Kronos

When Zeus reached maturity, he ambushed Kronos while the aged
god was out hunting. Zeus kicked Kronos in the stomach so hard
that he vomited up the stone and the five children he had
swallowed. In this way Demeter, Hades, Histia, Hera and
Poseidon were born. Zeus took the stone that Kronos vomited up
and placed it at the foot of Mount Parnassos near the city of
Delphi and proclaimed that the stone would be a portent and
marvel for the mortals of the earth for all time. The stone was
called the Omphalos [Navel] and its location became known as
the Navel of the Earth.

Briareos, Kottos and Gyes

Briareos, Kottos and Gyes played an important part in the lives
of Zeus, his father Kronos and his grandfather Ouranos. The
formidable brothers were three of the most terrible creatures
ever born to Gaia and Ouranos ... they have fifty heads and
fifty arms sprouting from their massive shoulders.

When Briareos, Kottos and Gyes were ready to leave the womb of
Gaia, Ouranos would not let them be born ... as they attempted
to come out, Ouranos pushed them back inside. This was one of
the reasons Gaia asked her Titan children to attack Ouranos and
mitigate his aggressive behavior. This was also the reason
Kronos accepted the gruesome task of mutilating his father.

With Ouranos neutralized, Kronos assumed that he would become
the lord of heaven and earth. In an attempt to please Gaia,
Kronos freed Briareos, Kottos and Gyes. The three brothers were
not only awesomely strange and frightening, they were also very
handsome. When Kronos saw them, he feared that they might
overpower him or that Gaia would make them her favorites and
thus take the authority he had assumed after Ouranos had been
dethroned. As time passed, Kronos became as overbearing as
Ouranos had been. He forced Briareos, Kottos and Gyes back
underground before they became too strong for him to master.

When Zeus defeated Kronos, he took mercy on Gaia and freed
Briareos, Kottos and Gyes. He fed then ambrosia and nectar
until they regained their vitality. Zeus did not fear the three
monstrous boys because he had no doubts about his own strength
and authority. Briareos, Kottos and Gyes posed no threat to
Zeus because they knew that he was their savior ... they vowed
to serve and protect him in any way they could.

Life on Mount Olympos was not always as polite and well ordered
as we might wish to believe. During a fierce argument, Hera,
Poseidon and Athene attacked Zeus and put him in shackles. This
was a dangerous situation for Zeus because they were without
doubt, three of the most powerful Immortals on Mount Olympos.
Zeus could have easily subdued each of them separately but
their combined strength was too much for him. Fortunately, the
Nereid Thetis saw what was happening and summoned Briareos to
help Zeus. When Briareos arrived on Mount Olympos, he did not
threaten the three hostile Immortals ... he simply sat beside
Zeus ... Hera, Poseidon and Athene retreated without another
word.

The War with the Titans

Even thought Kronos had been defeated by Zeus and forced off
Mount Olympos, he was not going to surrender his authority
without a fight ... he summoned the other Titans to help him
overcome Zeus and the new Olympians.

When Zeus realized that the Titans were going to fight, he
summoned the ancient Immortals to an assembly. Zeus promised
them that they would retain their powers and domains if they
would fight with him against the Titans ... he also told them
that they would regain the spheres of influence that Kronos had
taken from them. The Oath River Styx was the first to vow her
support for Zeus ... she also induced her children to join in
the war against the Titans. Many of the other ancient Immortals
were likewise persuaded and allied themselves with Zeus.

With the battle-lines clearly drawn, Zeus and his loyal
Immortals confronted the Titans ... the long and destructive
war began. The war lasted for ten years and was finally decided
when Briareos, Kottos and Gyes entered the fray ... they
bombarded the Titans with boulders and buried them. Zeus put
the Titans into Tartaros [the Pit] and made Briareos, Kottos
and Gyes their guardians. It might seem odd that Zeus would put
the three monstrous brothers back underground but they
willingly accepted their assignment as guards of the Titans
because of their respect for Zeus and not because he compelled
them to do so.
aaa
2017-04-10 02:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
Melzzzzz
2017-04-10 02:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
aaa
2017-04-10 13:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Tim
2017-04-10 14:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Nope.
aaa
2017-04-11 12:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Nope.
Yes.
Tim
2017-04-11 20:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Nope.
Yes.
No.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-11 21:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy.
We would realize that you don't know what you are talking about or what science and philosophy are. Evolution is rock solid science that you reject because you don't understand it. Only the truly stupid and ignorant reject evolution as a fact.

They don't know what they are doing.
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Nope.
Yes.
Let's look at some of this philosophy and wisdom then:

Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am the Lord your God. Keep my statutes, and observe them; I am the Lord; I sanctify you.

All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them.

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. [Leviticus, chapter 20]

When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person’, then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. But if someone wilfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution.

Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death.

Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death. Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.

Ask yourself this simple question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to discover yet?

Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains. If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with this book.

The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men.

A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.

Sorry, but there is no wisdom there. The only philosophy is that it seems life is not worth much if you can lose it over such small matters as adultery, or talking back to your parents. If that strikes you as the wisdom and philosophy of an omniscient, omnipotent, being, then I think it is you who is in denial and you who have no idea about morality.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-11 20:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Ask yourself this simple question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to discover yet?

Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains. If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with this book.

The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm

Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in a notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want to kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do anything that made life better for his creations?
Never, all he does in the bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad? Dead. Adultery, dead.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

That's the kind of deity we should believe in?

To hell with that kind of stupidity.
aaa
2017-04-12 12:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the difference
between science and philosophy. They don't know what they
are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a
book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder
and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect
to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the
author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the
author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to
discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible verses
and chapters.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us
dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains.
If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is
ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of
the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is
obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with
this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible that
way anymore.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is
imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by
primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and
the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in a
notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want to
kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do anything
that made life better for his creations? Never, all he does in the
bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad?
Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her
for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no
right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly
with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as
with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And
if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out
without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your conclusion
is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the Bible the way
you read it. So my conclusion is very different from yours.
Melzzzzz
2017-04-12 12:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the difference
between science and philosophy. They don't know what they
are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a
book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder
and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect
to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the
author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the
author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to
discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible verses
and chapters.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us
dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains.
If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is
ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of
the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is
obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with
this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible that
way anymore.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is
imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by
primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and
the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in a
notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want to
kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do anything
that made life better for his creations? Never, all he does in the
bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad?
Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her
for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no
right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly
with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as
with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And
if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out
without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your conclusion
is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the Bible the way
you read it. So my conclusion is very different from yours.
So, Bible says: eat shit. You read it smell flowers!
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-12 13:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:05:35 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the difference
between science and philosophy. They don't know what they
are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a
book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder
and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect
to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the
author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the
author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to
discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible verses
and chapters.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us
dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains.
If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is
ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of
the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is
obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with
this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible that
way anymore.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is
imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by
primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and
the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in a
notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want to
kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do anything
that made life better for his creations? Never, all he does in the
bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad?
Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her
for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no
right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly
with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as
with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And
if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out
without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your conclusion
is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the Bible the way
you read it. So my conclusion is very different from yours.
So, Bible says: eat shit. You read it smell flowers!
These morons are so utterly brainwashed that their imaginary magical
superbeing is both real and totally good, that their programming
crashes due to cognitive dissonance at the very idea that it isn't,
that their fundamentalist beliefs could be wrong, etc that their minds
reboot.
Melzzzzz
2017-04-12 13:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:05:35 +0000 (UTC), Melzzzzz
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the difference
between science and philosophy. They don't know what they
are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a
book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder
and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect
to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the
author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the
author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to
discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible verses
and chapters.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us
dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains.
If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is
ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of
the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is
obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with
this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible that
way anymore.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is
imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by
primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and
the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in a
notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want to
kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do anything
that made life better for his creations? Never, all he does in the
bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad?
Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her
for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no
right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly
with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as
with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And
if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out
without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your conclusion
is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the Bible the way
you read it. So my conclusion is very different from yours.
So, Bible says: eat shit. You read it smell flowers!
These morons are so utterly brainwashed that their imaginary magical
superbeing is both real and totally good, that their programming
crashes due to cognitive dissonance at the very idea that it isn't,
that their fundamentalist beliefs could be wrong, etc that their minds
reboot.
You have to be completely brainwashed in order to beleive in that crap
;p
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
aaa
2017-04-13 13:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the difference
between science and philosophy. They don't know what they
are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a
book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder
and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect
to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the
author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the
author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to
discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible verses
and chapters.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us
dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains.
If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is
ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of
the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is
obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with
this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible that
way anymore.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is
imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by
primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and
the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in a
notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want to
kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do anything
that made life better for his creations? Never, all he does in the
bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad?
Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her
for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no
right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly
with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as
with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And
if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out
without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your conclusion
is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the Bible the way
you read it. So my conclusion is very different from yours.
So, Bible says: eat shit. You read it smell flowers!
No. But I also try to understand who said it and why. I don't just
blindly believe everything the Bible said.
Melzzzzz
2017-04-13 13:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the difference
between science and philosophy. They don't know what they
are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a
book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder
and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect
to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the
author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the
author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to
discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible verses
and chapters.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us
dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains.
If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is
ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of
the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is
obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with
this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible that
way anymore.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is
imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by
primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and
the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in a
notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want to
kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do anything
that made life better for his creations? Never, all he does in the
bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad?
Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her
for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no
right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly
with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as
with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And
if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out
without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your conclusion
is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the Bible the way
you read it. So my conclusion is very different from yours.
So, Bible says: eat shit. You read it smell flowers!
No. But I also try to understand who said it and why. I don't just
blindly believe everything the Bible said.
Ahahahhahahah, this is a joke of a day!
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
aaa
2017-04-13 19:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the difference
between science and philosophy. They don't know what they
are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a
book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder
and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect
to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the
author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the
author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to
discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible verses
and chapters.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us
dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains.
If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is
ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of
the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is
obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with
this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible that
way anymore.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is
imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by
primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and
the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in a
notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want to
kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do anything
that made life better for his creations? Never, all he does in the
bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad?
Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her
for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no
right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly
with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as
with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And
if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out
without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your conclusion
is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the Bible the way
you read it. So my conclusion is very different from yours.
So, Bible says: eat shit. You read it smell flowers!
No. But I also try to understand who said it and why. I don't just
blindly believe everything the Bible said.
Ahahahhahahah, this is a joke of a day!
Why?
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-13 23:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the difference
between science and philosophy. They don't know what they
are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a
book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder
and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect
to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the
author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the
author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to
discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible verses
and chapters.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us
dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains.
If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is
ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of
the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is
obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with
this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible that
way anymore.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is
imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by
primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and
the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in a
notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want to
kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do anything
that made life better for his creations? Never, all he does in the
bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad?
Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her
for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no
right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly
with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as
with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And
if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out
without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your conclusion
is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the Bible the way
you read it. So my conclusion is very different from yours.
If you can read the bible differently than I can, it is evidence that the bible is not the word of god. God would have made sure that there was no confusion, no other way to interpret his word other than the one he intended.
aaa
2017-04-14 04:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the
difference between science and philosophy. They don't
know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm Ask yourself this simple
question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe?
Why doesn't a book written by an omniscient being leave you with
a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book
written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of
the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the
brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you
not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible
prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the author
to tell us things that scientists have not been able to discover
yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible
verses and chapters.
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves
us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it
contains. If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that
the Bible is ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch
the surface of the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest
with ourselves, it is obvious that an "all-knowing" God had
absolutely nothing to do with this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible
that way anymore.
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God
is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago
by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery
and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in
a notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want
to kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do
anything that made life better for his creations? Never, all he
does in the bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off
to mom and dad? Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as
the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who
designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he
shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has
dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he
shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife
to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital
rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three
things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of
money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your
conclusion is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the
Bible the way you read it. So my conclusion is very different from
yours.
If you can read the bible differently than I can, it is evidence that
the bible is not the word of god. God would have made sure that
there was no confusion, no other way to interpret his word other than
the one he intended.
Not at all. Everybody is entitled to their different opinion of the
Bible, but the truth of the Bible is never an opinion. Only the opinion
based on and inspired by the truth of Bible can be the right opinion.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-14 21:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't
science, you would know that all those things are just
junks done by people who have no idea about the
difference between science and philosophy. They don't
know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm Ask yourself this simple
question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe?
Why doesn't a book written by an omniscient being leave you with
a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book
written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of
the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the
brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you
not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible
prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the author
to tell us things that scientists have not been able to discover
yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those Bible
verses and chapters.
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is
nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves
us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it
contains. If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that
the Bible is ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch
the surface of the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest
with ourselves, it is obvious that an "all-knowing" God had
absolutely nothing to do with this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was what
happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at the Bible
that way anymore.
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God
is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago
by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery
and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they believe in
a notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God seems to want
to kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did god ever do
anything that made life better for his creations? Never, all he
does in the bible is give reasons to kill people over. Mouth off
to mom and dad? Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as
the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who
designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he
shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has
dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he
shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife
to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital
rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three
things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of
money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your
conclusion is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read the
Bible the way you read it. So my conclusion is very different from
yours.
If you can read the bible differently than I can, it is evidence that
the bible is not the word of god. God would have made sure that
there was no confusion, no other way to interpret his word other than
the one he intended.
Not at all. Everybody is entitled to their different opinion of the
Bible, but the truth of the Bible is never an opinion. Only the opinion
based on and inspired by the truth of Bible can be the right opinion.
If the Bible was written by an all powerful, all knowing god, it should be snap to make sure that it is not open to opinion. There would be only one possible interpretation.

There are muiltple interpretatiomns because it was written by human beings and has nothing to do with any god.
aaa
2017-04-15 08:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm Ask yourself this simple
question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in
awe? Why doesn't a book written by an omniscient being leave
you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading
a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving
creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by
the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author?
Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you
expect the author to tell us things that scientists have not
been able to discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those
Bible verses and chapters.
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it
is nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it
leaves us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness
that it contains. If you read what the Bible actually says,
you find that the Bible is ridiculous. The examples shown
above barely scratch the surface of the Bible's numerous
problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is obvious that
an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with this
book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was
what happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at
the Bible that way anymore.
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because
God is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of
years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless
murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in
our society today. https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they
believe in a notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God
seems to want to kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did
god ever do anything that made life better for his creations?
Never, all he does in the bible is give reasons to kill
people over. Mouth off to mom and dad? Dead. Adultery,
dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go
out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master,
who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be
redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign
people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he
designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a
daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first
wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she
shall go out without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your
conclusion is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read
the Bible the way you read it. So my conclusion is very
different from yours.
If you can read the bible differently than I can, it is evidence
that the bible is not the word of god. God would have made sure
that there was no confusion, no other way to interpret his word
other than the one he intended.
Not at all. Everybody is entitled to their different opinion of
the Bible, but the truth of the Bible is never an opinion. Only the
opinion based on and inspired by the truth of Bible can be the
right opinion.
If the Bible was written by an all powerful, all knowing god, it
should be snap to make sure that it is not open to opinion. There
would be only one possible interpretation.
Of course. That's why all interpretations that contradict with the truth
are wrong opinions. However, those interpretations that don't contradict
with the truth don't have to be exactly the same either because people's
understandings of the truth can be different. That's why the law of
Moses is not wrong even though applying it to modern society can be wrong.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
There are muiltple interpretatiomns because it was written by human
beings and has nothing to do with any god.
People's understandings of God are all different. That's why there are
multiple interpretations. It only says about the people. It doesn't say
anything about God.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-17 04:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm Ask yourself this simple
question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in
awe? Why doesn't a book written by an omniscient being leave
you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading
a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving
creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by
the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author?
Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its
incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you
expect the author to tell us things that scientists have not
been able to discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading those
Bible verses and chapters.
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it
is nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it
leaves us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness
that it contains. If you read what the Bible actually says,
you find that the Bible is ridiculous. The examples shown
above barely scratch the surface of the Bible's numerous
problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is obvious that
an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with this
book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that was
what happened to me, but things have changed. I don't look at
the Bible that way anymore.
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because
God is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of
years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless
murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in
our society today. https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they
believe in a notion that is so anti-life and anti-human. God
seems to want to kill people at the drop of a hat. Where did
god ever do anything that made life better for his creations?
Never, all he does in the bible is give reasons to kill
people over. Mouth off to mom and dad? Dead. Adultery,
dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go
out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master,
who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be
redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign
people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he
designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a
daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not
diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first
wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she
shall go out without debt, without payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible, your
conclusion is absolutely correct. The problem is, I don't read
the Bible the way you read it. So my conclusion is very
different from yours.
If you can read the bible differently than I can, it is evidence
that the bible is not the word of god. God would have made sure
that there was no confusion, no other way to interpret his word
other than the one he intended.
Not at all. Everybody is entitled to their different opinion of
the Bible, but the truth of the Bible is never an opinion. Only the
opinion based on and inspired by the truth of Bible can be the
right opinion.
If the Bible was written by an all powerful, all knowing god, it
should be snap to make sure that it is not open to opinion. There
would be only one possible interpretation.
Of course. That's why all interpretations that contradict with the truth
are wrong opinions.
Then the Bible is very wrong. There's all kinds of crap in there that contradict the truth.

However, those interpretations that don't contradict
Post by aaa
with the truth don't have to be exactly the same either because people's
understandings of the truth can be different.
There is the truth or something else. If one is supposed to be reading the words of the lord god almighty, then the lord god almighty should be able to manage to get it so there is only one interpretation, His.

That's why the law of
Post by aaa
Moses is not wrong even though applying it to modern society can be wrong.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
There are muiltple interpretatiomns because it was written by human
beings and has nothing to do with any god.
People's understandings of God are all different.
Sure the Muslims is different from the Christians and the Jews but even within the various religions the interpretations are different. The Catholics have different sects and they disagree with any number or Protestant interpretations.

If the Lord God Almighty is unable to make a book of his words, his requirements (assuming he actually has any)his rules and what he thinks it is important to know, and he is supposed to be the Lord god Almighty, an entity of unlimited power, it seems like it should be a trivial matter to create a bible that any person could read and know exactly and precisely what God wants, what God means.
If he can't, he's not god, he's a committee.

That's why there are
Post by aaa
multiple interpretations. It only says about the people. It doesn't say
anything about God.
It says that God is not omnipotent if he can't get his own words to be free from interpretation. If God wants you to do something, there should not be several different interpretations of what that is. We are still talking about an omnipotent being, right? One with unlimited power which is what omnipotent means.

If I were God I would have created one Bible that could be read even by the illiterate and understood completely and precisely so that there would be no confusion, no interpretations, just the clear and precise thoughts of your imaginary deity.

If God had really written the Bible, there would be NO "interpretations."
aaa
2017-04-18 15:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:55:22 AM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those
things are just junks done by people who have
no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are
doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
That too...
No. The Bible is philosophy with wisdom and truth.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm Ask yourself this
simple question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you
not left in awe? Why doesn't a book written by an
omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder and
amazement? If you are reading a book written by the
all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the
universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the
brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author?
Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with
its incredible prose and its spectacular insight?
Wouldn't you expect the author to tell us things that
scientists have not been able to discover yet?
Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I get by reading
those Bible verses and chapters.
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find
it is nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in
awe, it leaves us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and
backwardness that it contains. If you read what the Bible
actually says, you find that the Bible is ridiculous. The
examples shown above barely scratch the surface of the
Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with
ourselves, it is obvious that an "all-knowing" God had
absolutely nothing to do with this book.
That is not what happened to me. Well, at the first, that
was what happened to me, but things have changed. I don't
look at the Bible that way anymore.
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is
because God is imaginary. The Bible is a book written
thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that
advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of
women has no place in our society today.
https://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm
Frankly I think people should be embarrassed that they
believe in a notion that is so anti-life and anti-human.
God seems to want to kill people at the drop of a hat.
Where did god ever do anything that made life better for
his creations? Never, all he does in the bible is give
reasons to kill people over. Mouth off to mom and dad?
Dead. Adultery, dead.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not
go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her
master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let
her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a
foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If
he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as
with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he
shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights
of the first wife. And if he does not do these three
things for her, she shall go out without debt, without
payment of money.
That's the kind of deity we should believe in?
To hell with that kind of stupidity.
I agree. According to the way you understand the Bible,
your conclusion is absolutely correct. The problem is, I
don't read the Bible the way you read it. So my conclusion
is very different from yours.
If you can read the bible differently than I can, it is
evidence that the bible is not the word of god. God would
have made sure that there was no confusion, no other way to
interpret his word other than the one he intended.
Not at all. Everybody is entitled to their different opinion
of the Bible, but the truth of the Bible is never an opinion.
Only the opinion based on and inspired by the truth of Bible
can be the right opinion.
If the Bible was written by an all powerful, all knowing god, it
should be snap to make sure that it is not open to opinion.
There would be only one possible interpretation.
Of course. That's why all interpretations that contradict with the
truth are wrong opinions.
Then the Bible is very wrong. There's all kinds of crap in there
that contradict the truth.
Then the truth you know isn't the truth of God. There is nothing wrong
for the Bible to contradict with everything you know in your mind as
long as it does not contradict with what's found in your heart.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
However, those interpretations that don't contradict
Post by aaa
with the truth don't have to be exactly the same either because
people's understandings of the truth can be different.
There is the truth or something else. If one is supposed to be
reading the words of the lord god almighty, then the lord god
almighty should be able to manage to get it so there is only one
interpretation, His.
Yes. That's why everybody needs to improve their own personal
understanding to find out what God truly means.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
That's why the law of
Post by aaa
Moses is not wrong even though applying it to modern society can be
wrong..
Post by Cloud Hobbit
There are muiltple interpretatiomns because it was written by
human beings and has nothing to do with any god.
People's understandings of God are all different.
Sure the Muslims is different from the Christians and the Jews but
even within the various religions the interpretations are different.
The Catholics have different sects and they disagree with any number
or Protestant interpretations.
If the Lord God Almighty is unable to make a book of his words, his
requirements (assuming he actually has any)his rules and what he
thinks it is important to know, and he is supposed to be the Lord god
Almighty, an entity of unlimited power, it seems like it should be a
trivial matter to create a bible that any person could read and know
exactly and precisely what God wants, what God means. If he can't,
he's not god, he's a committee.
People are free to explain, describe, and interpret the truth of God
according to their understandings, but the truth found and realized in
people's heart should not be different. The difference in
interpretations and descriptions are not important as long as they are
pointing at the truth in everyone's heart. Only the truth rules. There
is no committee needed.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
That's why there are
Post by aaa
multiple interpretations. It only says about the people. It doesn't
say anything about God.
It says that God is not omnipotent if he can't get his own words to
be free from interpretation. If God wants you to do something, there
should not be several different interpretations of what that is. We
are still talking about an omnipotent being, right? One with
unlimited power which is what omnipotent means.
If I were God I would have created one Bible that could be read even
by the illiterate and understood completely and precisely so that
there would be no confusion, no interpretations, just the clear and
precise thoughts of your imaginary deity.
If God had really written the Bible, there would be NO
"interpretations."
No. The truth of God can not be described with words. The interpretation
and description are only indications of the actual truth itself. They
only represent people's understandings of the truth. They are not the
actual truth itself. There can not be a single interpretation to be
equal to the truth itself.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-10 08:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
Yes, the Bible lies. The Bible is too stiff to be used as toilet
paper. Please educate yourself:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-11 21:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.

Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven science.

https://godisimaginary.com/i4.htm
aaa
2017-04-12 12:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from
Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only a historical
account about the relationship between God and the Jews. Since God is a
spirit, such relationship does not have to be a physical history. It is
a spiritual history that is indescribable with words. God did not want
the Jews to forget their historical relationship with him. That is why
the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and remember their
special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help
or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years
of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven
science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution wrong with
both philosophy and science. The second law of thermodynamics can ensure
that random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change. A
beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced entropy. Such event would
never happen in natural environment automatically and randomly according
to the second law. The so called random mutation plus natural selection
is nothing but a pipe dream.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://godisimaginary.com/i4.htm
John Ritson
2017-04-12 13:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from
Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only a historical
account about the relationship between God and the Jews. Since God is a
spirit, such relationship does not have to be a physical history. It is
a spiritual history that is indescribable with words. God did not want
the Jews to forget their historical relationship with him. That is why
the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and remember their
special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help
or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years
of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven
science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution wrong with
both philosophy and science. The second law of thermodynamics can ensure
that random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change. A
beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes sickle-cell
anaemia is harmful in some environments, but beneficial (because it
protects against malaria) in other environments.
Post by aaa
Such event would
never happen in natural environment automatically and randomly according
to the second law. The so called random mutation plus natural selection
is nothing but a pipe dream.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://godisimaginary.com/i4.htm
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
--
John Ritson
aaa
2017-04-13 12:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from
Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only a historical
account about the relationship between God and the Jews. Since God is a
spirit, such relationship does not have to be a physical history. It is
a spiritual history that is indescribable with words. God did not want
the Jews to forget their historical relationship with him. That is why
the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and remember their
special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help
or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years
of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven
science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution wrong with
both philosophy and science. The second law of thermodynamics can ensure
that random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change. A
beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes sickle-cell
anaemia is harmful in some environments, but beneficial (because it
protects against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in a deadly
environment.
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Such event would
never happen in natural environment automatically and randomly according
to the second law. The so called random mutation plus natural selection
is nothing but a pipe dream.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://godisimaginary.com/i4.htm
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Ritson
2017-04-13 14:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from
Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only a historical
account about the relationship between God and the Jews. Since God is a
spirit, such relationship does not have to be a physical history. It is
a spiritual history that is indescribable with words. God did not want
the Jews to forget their historical relationship with him. That is why
the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and remember their
special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help
or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years
of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven
science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution wrong with
both philosophy and science. The second law of thermodynamics can ensure
that random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change. A
beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes sickle-cell
anaemia is harmful in some environments, but beneficial (because it
protects against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in a deadly
environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
aaa
2017-04-13 19:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from
Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only a historical
account about the relationship between God and the Jews. Since God is a
spirit, such relationship does not have to be a physical history. It is
a spiritual history that is indescribable with words. God did not want
the Jews to forget their historical relationship with him. That is why
the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and remember their
special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help
or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years
of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven
science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution wrong with
both philosophy and science. The second law of thermodynamics can ensure
that random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change. A
beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes sickle-cell
anaemia is harmful in some environments, but beneficial (because it
protects against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in a deadly
environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that possibility. A
beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA structure. It has a
reduced entropy. In natural environment, a reduced entropy does not
happen by random chance.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-13 19:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
aaa <***@somewhere.org> wrote in news:ocois2$es7$***@dont-email.me:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Andrew
2017-04-13 20:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
"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,
So, it is false ~because~ it is false.

And this is a good enough ~reason~ for you?

Then your interest is in the promotion of an
~agenda~ rather than-->the truth.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-14 05:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
"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,
So, it is false ~because~ it is false.
And this is a good enough ~reason~ for you?
Then your interest is in the promotion of an
~agenda~ rather than-->the truth.
Creationism is false because it has been _proven_ false over and
over again!!! If you were actually interested in the truth, you'd
examine the evidence, all of it!

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Andrew
2017-04-15 19:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
"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,
So, it is false fbecause it is false. And this is a good enough
~reason~ for you? Then your interest is in the promotion of
an ~agenda~ rather than-->the truth.
Creationism is false because it has been _proven_ false
over and over again!!!
You are so funny.
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
If you were actually interested in the truth, you'd
examine the evidence, all of it!
I do every day. That's why I am a Creationist, because the evidence is
irrefutable.
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>
<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>
Court cases are typically filed with bias.
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
An unbiased blog? No.
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>
<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>
You follow the consensus, but they construct a
fantasized story that fits into their philosophical
prejudices, and apply their *story* to the fossils.

Only the gullible accept what they say without
question.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is
fragmentary and open to various interpretations."
~ Henry Gee, senior editor, Nature

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they
represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis
that can be tested, but an assertion that carries
the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing,
perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
~ Henry Gee, senior editor, Nature
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-15 19:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
"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,
So, it is false fbecause it is false. And this is a good enough
~reason~ for you? Then your interest is in the promotion of
an ~agenda~ rather than-->the truth.
Creationism is false because it has been _proven_ false
over and over again!!!
You are so funny.
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
If you were actually interested in the truth, you'd
examine the evidence, all of it!
I do every day. That's why I am a Creationist, because the evidence is
irrefutable.
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_Distric
t>
<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>
Court cases are typically filed with bias.
In this case, a Bush appointment, and a strong Christian. Try again.
Post by Andrew
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say
-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
An unbiased blog? No.
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbli
ng-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>
<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>
You follow the consensus, but they construct a
fantasized story that fits into their philosophical
prejudices, and apply their *story* to the fossils.
Only the gullible accept what they say without
question.
"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is
fragmentary and open to various interpretations."
~ Henry Gee, senior editor, Nature
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they
represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis
that can be tested, but an assertion that carries
the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing,
perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
~ Henry Gee, senior editor, Nature
Quoting a recongnized loons leads nowhere. Try again:

<https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/nature-editor-henry-
gee-goes-all-anti-science/>

<http://tinyurl.com/n7ut8nn>
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-14 15:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
"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,
So, it is false ~because~ it is false.
And this is a good enough ~reason~ for you?
Then your interest is in the promotion of an
~agenda~ rather than-->the truth.
It's false because the _evidence_ proves it false beyond all
doubt. Also, there is not a drop of evidence that supports
creationism, creationism is 100% conjecture. Educate
yourself:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
John Ritson
2017-04-13 22:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from
Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only a historical
account about the relationship between God and the Jews. Since God is a
spirit, such relationship does not have to be a physical history. It is
a spiritual history that is indescribable with words. God did not want
the Jews to forget their historical relationship with him. That is why
the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and remember their
special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help
or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years
of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven
science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution wrong with
both philosophy and science. The second law of thermodynamics can ensure
that random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change. A
beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes sickle-cell
anaemia is harmful in some environments, but beneficial (because it
protects against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in a deadly
environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that possibility. A
beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA structure. It has a
reduced entropy. In natural environment, a reduced entropy does not
happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what the
environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has 'reduced
entropy' until you know what the environment is.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-13 23:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:21:22 +0100, John Ritson
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from
Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only a historical
account about the relationship between God and the Jews. Since God is a
spirit, such relationship does not have to be a physical history. It is
a spiritual history that is indescribable with words. God did not want
the Jews to forget their historical relationship with him. That is why
the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and remember their
special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help
or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years
of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven
science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution wrong with
both philosophy and science. The second law of thermodynamics can ensure
that random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change. A
beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes sickle-cell
anaemia is harmful in some environments, but beneficial (because it
protects against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in a deadly
environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that possibility. A
Liar.

These pig-ignorant, gullible morons regularly trot out the 2LOT, even
though it has been explained over and over again that it does not even
apply necause it's an open system.
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA structure. It has a
reduced entropy. In natural environment, a reduced entropy does not
happen by random chance.
Meaningless nonsense made up of buzz-words he doesn't even try to
understand
Post by John Ritson
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what the
environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has 'reduced
entropy' until you know what the environment is.
Does he know _anything_?
aaa
2017-04-14 04:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:21:22 +0100, John Ritson
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from
Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only a historical
account about the relationship between God and the Jews. Since God is a
spirit, such relationship does not have to be a physical history. It is
a spiritual history that is indescribable with words. God did not want
the Jews to forget their historical relationship with him. That is why
the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and remember their
special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help
or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years
of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven
science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution wrong with
both philosophy and science. The second law of thermodynamics can ensure
that random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change. A
beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes sickle-cell
anaemia is harmful in some environments, but beneficial (because it
protects against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in a deadly
environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that possibility. A
Liar.
These pig-ignorant, gullible morons regularly trot out the 2LOT, even
though it has been explained over and over again that it does not even
apply necause it's an open system.
Your education in science needs a total overhaul. It's quite unscientific.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA structure. It has a
reduced entropy. In natural environment, a reduced entropy does not
happen by random chance.
Meaningless nonsense made up of buzz-words he doesn't even try to
understand
That's why you need to go back to your science class to learn everything
about the second law of the thermodynamics again. You have no idea what
I'm talking about.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by John Ritson
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what the
environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has 'reduced
entropy' until you know what the environment is.
Does he know _anything_?
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-14 05:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
aaa <***@somewhere.org> wrote in news:ocpjc6$58n$***@dont-email.me:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-14 21:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:21:22 +0100, John Ritson
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science,
you would know that all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference between science
and philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million people from
Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only a historical
account about the relationship between God and the Jews. Since God is a
spirit, such relationship does not have to be a physical history. It is
a spiritual history that is indescribable with words. God did not want
the Jews to forget their historical relationship with him. That is why
the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and remember their
special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can either help
or hurt the chances for a species to live. There are over 150 years
of evidence that confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who rejects proven
science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution wrong with
both philosophy and science. The second law of thermodynamics can ensure
that random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change. A
beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes sickle-cell
anaemia is harmful in some environments, but beneficial (because it
protects against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in a deadly
environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that possibility. A
Liar.
These pig-ignorant, gullible morons regularly trot out the 2LOT, even
though it has been explained over and over again that it does not even
apply necause it's an open system.
Your education in science needs a total overhaul. It's quite unscientific.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA structure. It has a
reduced entropy. In natural environment, a reduced entropy does not
happen by random chance.
Meaningless nonsense made up of buzz-words he doesn't even try to
understand
That's why you need to go back to your science class to learn everything
about the second law of the thermodynamics again. You have no idea what
I'm talking about.
Neither do you. I have posted the actual meaning of the second law by the guy who wrote it and you deny that. It's clear you either do not understand it or refuse to.
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by John Ritson
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what the
environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has 'reduced
entropy' until you know what the environment is.
Does he know _anything_?
aaa
2017-04-15 08:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:21:22 +0100, John Ritson
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 7:47:41 PM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why
evolution isn't science, you would know that
all those things are just junks done by
people who have no idea about the difference
between science and philosophy. They don't
know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2
million people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever
been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus
is only a historical account about the relationship
between God and the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such
relationship does not have to be a physical history.
It is a spiritual history that is indescribable with
words. God did not want the Jews to forget their
historical relationship with him. That is why the
Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Evolution says that there are random mutations that
can either help or hurt the chances for a species
to live. There are over 150 years of evidence that
confirms this. You can deny evolution forever and
all it will prove is that you are a moron who
rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved
evolution wrong with both philosophy and science. The
second law of thermodynamics can ensure that random
mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA change.
A beneficial DNA change is the result of reduced
entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that
causes sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some
environments, but beneficial (because it protects
against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to
survive in a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on
the environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A
Liar.
These pig-ignorant, gullible morons regularly trot out the 2LOT,
even though it has been explained over and over again that it
does not even apply necause it's an open system.
Your education in science needs a total overhaul. It's quite
unscientific.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment,
a reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
Meaningless nonsense made up of buzz-words he doesn't even try
to understand
That's why you need to go back to your science class to learn
everything about the second law of the thermodynamics again. You
have no idea what I'm talking about.
Neither do you. I have posted the actual meaning of the second law
by the guy who wrote it and you deny that. It's clear you either do
not understand it or refuse to.
No. I only reject your inferior understanding of the second law. For you
to claim that the second law only works in a closed system is just like
claiming that gravity only works on earth because no one has been able
to measure gravity in outer space. You have no real understanding of the
second law. Your understanding of the second law is only on paper. It's
nonexistent in the real situations.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by John Ritson
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know
what the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if
it has 'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment
is.
Does he know _anything_?
Davej
2017-04-14 21:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
That's why you need to go back to your science class to learn
everything about the second law of the thermodynamics again.
You have no idea what I'm talking about.
That's because you're a complete idiot. Did you happen to
notice that if entropy must ALWAYS increase then ice would
never form and steam would never condense into water, since
both of those state changes involve a decrease in entropy.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-14 22:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by aaa
That's why you need to go back to your science class to learn
everything about the second law of the thermodynamics again.
Project much, liar?
Post by Davej
Post by aaa
You have no idea what I'm talking about.
This in-your-face, pig-ignorant moron certainly doesn't
Post by Davej
That's because you're a complete idiot. Did you happen to
notice that if entropy must ALWAYS increase then ice would
never form and steam would never condense into water, since
both of those state changes involve a decrease in entropy.
Refrigerators wouldn't work, nor would rechargeable batteries and a
whole slew of other things the moron doesn't even think about.

Does anybody know where this bullshit originated?

These morons would never even have heard of the 2LOT lf this hadn't
come down from some liar at Christian Central.
aaa
2017-04-15 08:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by aaa
That's why you need to go back to your science class to learn
everything about the second law of the thermodynamics again.
You have no idea what I'm talking about.
That's because you're a complete idiot. Did you happen to
notice that if entropy must ALWAYS increase then ice would
never form and steam would never condense into water, since
both of those state changes involve a decrease in entropy.
Ice can only be formed by radiating heat to increase the entropy of the
environment. The total entropy for the radiation process to happen is
always an increase. If the water is kept from radiating heat, it will
never be frozen.
aaa
2017-04-14 04:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in
a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment, a
reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what
the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has
'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have to care
about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is undetermined
and unpredictable.
John Ritson
2017-04-14 07:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in
a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment, a
reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what
the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has
'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have to care
about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is undetermined
and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a change in
the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell anaemia is a single
nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon for amino acid 6. The
change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG).

What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one letter in
the genetic code?
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
aaa
2017-04-15 08:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in
a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment, a
reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what
the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has
'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have to care
about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is undetermined
and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a change in
the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell anaemia is a single
nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon for amino acid 6. The
change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to do
with the origin of life.
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one letter in
the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
John Ritson
2017-04-15 14:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in
a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment, a
reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what
the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has
'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have to care
about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is undetermined
and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a change in
the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell anaemia is a single
nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon for amino acid 6. The
change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to do
with the origin of life.
So the A to T change, which gives protection against malaria is
beneficial in malarial areas.
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one letter in
the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
Your crazed interpretation of the second law would forbid any organism
from developing beyond a simple cell as that would reduce entropy.

But yet you exist.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
aaa
2017-04-15 18:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in
a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment, a
reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what
the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has
'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have to care
about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is undetermined
and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a change in
the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell anaemia is a single
nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon for amino acid 6. The
change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to do
with the origin of life.
So the A to T change, which gives protection against malaria is
beneficial in malarial areas.
I'm not sure what you are talking about? Is malaria a genetic disease?
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one letter in
the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
Your crazed interpretation of the second law would forbid any organism
from developing beyond a simple cell as that would reduce entropy.
But yet you exist.
You are quite confused. I'm proving that beneficial DNA change would
never happen without God. I'm not trying to prove that life should never
have existed. Your evolutionary ideology is not the only answer to life.
It has been proven false according to the second law. You should realize
this to abandon evolution. You don't have to kill yourself because
evolution is false.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-15 19:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive
in a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly
DNA structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment,
a reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know
what the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if
it has 'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have
to care about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is
undetermined and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a change
in the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell anaemia is a
single nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon for amino acid
6. The change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine
codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to do
with the origin of life.
So the A to T change, which gives protection against malaria is
beneficial in malarial areas.
I'm not sure what you are talking about? Is malaria a genetic disease?
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one
letter in the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes
evolution and abiogenesis.
Your crazed interpretation of the second law would forbid any
organism from developing beyond a simple cell as that would reduce
entropy.
But yet you exist.
You are quite confused. I'm proving that beneficial DNA change would
never happen without God. I'm not trying to prove that life should
never have existed. Your evolutionary ideology is not the only answer
to life. It has been proven false according to the second law. You
should realize this to abandon evolution. You don't have to kill
yourself because evolution is false.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
John Ritson
2017-04-16 10:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in
a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment, a
reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what
the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has
'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have to care
about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is undetermined
and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a change in
the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell anaemia is a single
nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon for amino acid 6. The
change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to do
with the origin of life.
So the A to T change, which gives protection against malaria is
beneficial in malarial areas.
I'm not sure what you are talking about? Is malaria a genetic disease?
Sickle-cell anaemia is a condition, caused by a one-letter change in the
genetic code, which changes the shape of red blood cells (to a sickle
shape). This causes a form of anaemia because the red blood cells cannot
carry as much oxygen. Yet in malarial areas it is beneficial as sickle-
shaped red blood cells are resistant to the malaria parasite, unlike
standard red cells.

So a single-letter change to the genetic change can be beneficial.
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one letter in
the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
So in two successive sentences you say that your bizarre version of the
second law does not affect life, and that it refutes evolution.
Evolution covers changes to living species. So you are admitting that
even your crazed version does not affect evolution.
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Your crazed interpretation of the second law would forbid any organism
from developing beyond a simple cell as that would reduce entropy.
But yet you exist.
You are quite confused. I'm proving that beneficial DNA change would
never happen without God. I'm not trying to prove that life should never
have existed. Your evolutionary ideology is not the only answer to life.
It has been proven false according to the second law. You should realize
this to abandon evolution. You don't have to kill yourself because
evolution is false.
You started life as a single cell. You are now a much more complex
organism, despite your crazed version of the second law.
Hint: it is because you were never a closed system (which is a necessary
condition for the second law to apply).
Post by aaa
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
--
John Ritson
Smiler
2017-04-17 04:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
You are quite confused. I'm proving that beneficial DNA change would
never happen without God. I'm not trying to prove that life should never
have existed. Your evolutionary ideology is not the only answer to life.
It has been proven false according to the second law. You should realize
this to abandon evolution. You don't have to kill yourself because
evolution is false.
You started life as a single cell. You are now a much more complex
organism, despite your crazed version of the second law.
Hint: it is because you were never a closed system (which is a necessary
condition for the second law to apply).
He isn't a closed system, but his brain is.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-17 04:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
You are quite confused. I'm proving that beneficial DNA change would
never happen without God.
WHAT FUCKING GOD, in-your-face liar?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
I'm not trying to prove that life should never
Post by aaa
have existed. Your evolutionary ideology
WHAT FUCKING "EVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGY", proven serial liar?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
is not the only answer to life.
It has been proven false according to the second law.
How so, proven serial liar who just throws about a few buzz-phrases
which he doesn't even try to understand?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
You should realize
this to abandon evolution. You don't have to kill yourself because
evolution is false.
How is it false, proven serial liar, when it is an observed phenomenon
that is extremely well understood after more than a century and a half
of objective research into its causes and mechanisms?
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You started life as a single cell. You are now a much more complex
organism, despite your crazed version of the second law.
Hint: it is because you were never a closed system (which is a necessary
condition for the second law to apply).
He isn't a closed system, but his brain is.
He's insane.
aaa
2017-04-18 12:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in
a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment, a
reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what
the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has
'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have to care
about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is undetermined
and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a change in
the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell anaemia is a single
nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon for amino acid 6. The
change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to do
with the origin of life.
So the A to T change, which gives protection against malaria is
beneficial in malarial areas.
I'm not sure what you are talking about? Is malaria a genetic disease?
Sickle-cell anaemia is a condition, caused by a one-letter change in the
genetic code, which changes the shape of red blood cells (to a sickle
shape). This causes a form of anaemia because the red blood cells cannot
carry as much oxygen. Yet in malarial areas it is beneficial as sickle-
shaped red blood cells are resistant to the malaria parasite, unlike
standard red cells.
So a single-letter change to the genetic change can be beneficial.
Yes. It can be considered as beneficial for people living in malarial
areas.
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one letter in
the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
So in two successive sentences you say that your bizarre version of the
second law does not affect life, and that it refutes evolution.
Evolution covers changes to living species. So you are admitting that
even your crazed version does not affect evolution.
No. How evolution explains life is different from how life becomes
possible in nature. The second law refutes natural selection based on
random mutation. The second law does not refutes life itself.
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Your crazed interpretation of the second law would forbid any organism
from developing beyond a simple cell as that would reduce entropy.
But yet you exist.
You are quite confused. I'm proving that beneficial DNA change would
never happen without God. I'm not trying to prove that life should never
have existed. Your evolutionary ideology is not the only answer to life.
It has been proven false according to the second law. You should realize
this to abandon evolution. You don't have to kill yourself because
evolution is false.
You started life as a single cell. You are now a much more complex
organism, despite your crazed version of the second law.
Hint: it is because you were never a closed system (which is a necessary
condition for the second law to apply).
The second law is not my crazed version. It's the law that governs all
things in life. It guarantees that order can not be established
automatically and randomly to enable life. Life is an orderly
construction in nature. It can only be accomplished by intelligence to
defy and circumvent the second law. The natural environment can not
provide such ability to life. It's the same as the natural environment
can not provide people with the ability to build a modern computer. The
ability to create complex things is the ability of human intelligence.
The ability to create complex living things is the ability of God. Such
ability is based on knowledge and understanding. It's not based on the
ability of a monkey capable of typing in front of a computer for
hundreds of millions years randomly.
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Ritson
2017-04-18 13:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in
a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment, a
reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what
the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has
'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have to care
about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is undetermined
and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a change in
the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell anaemia is a single
nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon for amino acid 6. The
change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to do
with the origin of life.
So the A to T change, which gives protection against malaria is
beneficial in malarial areas.
I'm not sure what you are talking about? Is malaria a genetic disease?
Sickle-cell anaemia is a condition, caused by a one-letter change in the
genetic code, which changes the shape of red blood cells (to a sickle
shape). This causes a form of anaemia because the red blood cells cannot
carry as much oxygen. Yet in malarial areas it is beneficial as sickle-
shaped red blood cells are resistant to the malaria parasite, unlike
standard red cells.
So a single-letter change to the genetic change can be beneficial.
Yes. It can be considered as beneficial for people living in malarial
areas.
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one letter in
the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
So in two successive sentences you say that your bizarre version of the
second law does not affect life, and that it refutes evolution.
Evolution covers changes to living species. So you are admitting that
even your crazed version does not affect evolution.
No. How evolution explains life is different from how life becomes
possible in nature. The second law refutes natural selection based on
random mutation.
But you have just admitted:
"
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
So a single-letter change to the genetic change can be beneficial.
Yes. It can be considered as beneficial for people living in malarial
areas.
The second law does not refutes life itself.
Even your crazed interpretation would obviously be impossible if it
"refuted life".
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Your crazed interpretation of the second law would forbid any organism
from developing beyond a simple cell as that would reduce entropy.
But yet you exist.
You are quite confused. I'm proving that beneficial DNA change would
never happen without God. I'm not trying to prove that life should never
have existed. Your evolutionary ideology is not the only answer to life.
It has been proven false according to the second law. You should realize
this to abandon evolution. You don't have to kill yourself because
evolution is false.
You started life as a single cell. You are now a much more complex
organism, despite your crazed version of the second law.
Hint: it is because you were never a closed system (which is a necessary
condition for the second law to apply).
The second law is not my crazed version. It's the law that governs all
things in life.
But it only applies in a closed system, not one with an external source
of energy such as the sun.
Post by aaa
It guarantees that order can not be established
automatically and randomly to enable life. Life is an orderly
construction in nature. It can only be accomplished by intelligence to
defy and circumvent the second law.
But the second law only applies in a closed system, not one with an
external source of energy such as the sun.
Post by aaa
The natural environment can not
provide such ability to life. It's the same as the natural environment
can not provide people with the ability to build a modern computer.
False analogy.
Post by aaa
The
ability to create complex things is the ability of human intelligence.
Complex things such as snowflakes can occur without intelligence.
Post by aaa
The ability to create complex living things is the ability of God.
Complex things such as snowflakes can occur without intelligence.
Post by aaa
Such
ability is based on knowledge and understanding.
Complex things such as snowflakes can occur without intelligence.
Post by aaa
It's not based on the
ability of a monkey capable of typing in front of a computer for
hundreds of millions years randomly.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Davej
2017-04-16 12:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one
letter in the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
No it doesn't. Chemical reactions occur. Ice forms. Steam
condenses. The earth is not a closed system.
aaa
2017-04-18 12:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one
letter in the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
No it doesn't. Chemical reactions occur. Ice forms. Steam
condenses. The earth is not a closed system.
Irrelevant. Local entropy fluctuation is nature is very different from
the reduced entropy in life. Ice is only formed by losing energy. Life
is created by absorbing and preserving energy. It's very different
process that will only happen in life and will never happen in the
lifeless natural environment all by itself. It's the result of creation.
It's the same as modern computer is the result of human creation.
John Ritson
2017-04-18 14:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Davej
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one
letter in the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
No it doesn't. Chemical reactions occur. Ice forms. Steam
condenses. The earth is not a closed system.
Irrelevant. Local entropy fluctuation is nature is very different from
the reduced entropy in life.
Entropy is entropy. You might want some special form of entropy that
only applies to life, but that would only be a figment of your
imagination.
Post by aaa
Ice is only formed by losing energy. Life
is created by absorbing and preserving energy.
And there is a big hot object called the sun which produces such energy.
Post by aaa
It's very different
process that will only happen in life and will never happen in the
lifeless natural environment all by itself.
Only in your crazed imagination.
Post by aaa
It's the result of creation.
It's the same as modern computer is the result of human creation.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-17 04:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why evolution
isn't science, you would know that all those things
are just junks done by people who have no idea
about the difference between science and
philosophy. They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2 million
people from Egypt, yet no evidence has ever been found to
confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus is only
a historical account about the relationship between God and
the Jews. Since God is a spirit, such relationship does not
have to be a physical history. It is a spiritual history
that is indescribable with words. God did not want the Jews
to forget their historical relationship with him. That is
why the Exodus was written by the Jews to remember God and
remember their special place in relation with God.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Evolution says that there are random mutations that can
either help or hurt the chances for a species to live.
There are over 150 years of evidence that confirms this.
You can deny evolution forever and all it will prove is
that you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved evolution
wrong with both philosophy and science. The second law of
thermodynamics can ensure that random mutation would never
cause a beneficial DNA change. A beneficial DNA change is
the result of reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that causes
sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some environments, but
beneficial (because it protects against malaria) in other
environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to survive in
a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on the
environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created orderly DNA
structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural environment, a
reduced entropy does not happen by random chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know what
the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell if it has
'reduced entropy' until you know what the environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't have to care
about the non-beneficial DNA change since their cause is undetermined
and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a change in
the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell anaemia is a single
nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon for amino acid 6. The
change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG) to a valine codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to do
with the origin of life.
A DNA change can occur that is neither beneficial or harmful it does not mean disease and there most definitely is not a connection to "sin."
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one letter in
the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes evolution
and abiogenesis.
You are just making things up.
The second law says no such thing.
You do not understand it or you are deliberately misrepresenting what it says.
aaa
2017-04-18 12:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 7:47:41 PM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why
evolution isn't science, you would know
that all those things are just junks done
by people who have no idea about the
difference between science and philosophy.
They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2
million people from Egypt, yet no evidence has
ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus
is only a historical account about the relationship
between God and the Jews. Since God is a spirit,
such relationship does not have to be a physical
history. It is a spiritual history that is
indescribable with words. God did not want the
Jews to forget their historical relationship with
him. That is why the Exodus was written by the Jews
to remember God and remember their special place in
relation with God.
Evolution says that there are random mutations
that can either help or hurt the chances for a
species to live. There are over 150 years of
evidence that confirms this. You can deny
evolution forever and all it will prove is that
you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved
evolution wrong with both philosophy and science.
The second law of thermodynamics can ensure that
random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA
change. A beneficial DNA change is the result of
reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that
causes sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some
environments, but beneficial (because it protects
against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to
survive in a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on
the environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created
orderly DNA structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural
environment, a reduced entropy does not happen by random
chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know
what the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell
if it has 'reduced entropy' until you know what the
environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't
have to care about the non-beneficial DNA change since their
cause is undetermined and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a
change in the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell
anaemia is a single nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon
for amino acid 6. The change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG)
to a valine codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to
do with the origin of life.
A DNA change can occur that is neither beneficial or harmful it does
not mean disease and there most definitely is not a connection to
"sin."
Irrelevant. I'm talking about the beneficial DNA change being the result
of intelligence instead of random chance. According to second law, order
can not be constructed by gaining energy, and energy can not be
preserved without increasing entropy. Life is capable to create order by
preserving energy. It defies the second law. Such ability to defy the
second law is based on an intelligent source. The unintelligent natural
environment is not capable to provide life with such ability to defy the
second law and to enable life.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one
letter in the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life. The second law refutes
evolution and abiogenesis.
You are just making things up. The second law says no such thing. You
do not understand it or you are deliberately misrepresenting what it
says.
That's just your speculation. You have not been able to prove that there
is anything wrong with my understanding of the second law.
John Ritson
2017-04-18 14:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
Post by aaa
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 7:47:41 PM UTC-7, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Gerald
Post by aaa
If you have read my explanations why
evolution isn't science, you would know
that all those things are just junks done
by people who have no idea about the
difference between science and philosophy.
They don't know what they are doing.
The Bible is lies.
Bullshit.
The Bible says there was an Exodus of around 2
million people from Egypt, yet no evidence has
ever been found to confirm that.
So what? The Bible is not your history book. Exodus
is only a historical account about the relationship
between God and the Jews. Since God is a spirit,
such relationship does not have to be a physical
history. It is a spiritual history that is
indescribable with words. God did not want the
Jews to forget their historical relationship with
him. That is why the Exodus was written by the Jews
to remember God and remember their special place in
relation with God.
Evolution says that there are random mutations
that can either help or hurt the chances for a
species to live. There are over 150 years of
evidence that confirms this. You can deny
evolution forever and all it will prove is that
you are a moron who rejects proven science.
I'm not just denying evolution. I actually proved
evolution wrong with both philosophy and science.
The second law of thermodynamics can ensure that
random mutation would never cause a beneficial DNA
change. A beneficial DNA change is the result of
reduced entropy.
What is a 'beneficial DNA change'? The mutation that
causes sickle-cell anaemia is harmful in some
environments, but beneficial (because it protects
against malaria) in other environments.
A beneficial DNA change makes the living organism to
survive in a deadly environment.
So a 'random' DNA change can be beneficial, depending on
the environment.
No. The second law of thermodynamics has eliminated that
possibility. A beneficial DNA change is a newly created
orderly DNA structure. It has a reduced entropy. In natural
environment, a reduced entropy does not happen by random
chance.
You can't say if a change is beneficial or not until you know
what the environment is. So according to you, you can't tell
if it has 'reduced entropy' until you know what the
environment is.
No. I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. I don't
have to care about the non-beneficial DNA change since their
cause is undetermined and unpredictable.
The change that introduces/removes sickle-cell anaemia is a
change in the ß-globin gene. The mutation causing sickle cell
anaemia is a single nucleotide substitution (A to T) in the codon
for amino acid 6. The change converts a glutamic acid codon (GAG)
to a valine codon (GTG).
As I said, I'm only focusing on the beneficial DNA change. Genetic
disease is the result of sin to destroy life. It's has nothing to
do with the origin of life.
A DNA change can occur that is neither beneficial or harmful it does
not mean disease and there most definitely is not a connection to
"sin."
Irrelevant. I'm talking about the beneficial DNA change being the result
of intelligence instead of random chance.
The change of one letter in the human genetic code can produce sickle-
cell anaemia which is beneficial in malarial areas. No intelligence
required.
Or are you saying that one-letter changes in the genetic code are
impossible?
Post by aaa
According to second law, order
can not be constructed by gaining energy, and energy can not be
preserved without increasing entropy.
And the second law only applies in closed systems. Luckily there is a
big hot object called the sun which is providing energy, and increasing
its own entropy.
Post by aaa
Life is capable to create order by
preserving energy. It defies the second law.
If something could defy a law, that would mean the law didn't apply.
Post by aaa
Such ability to defy the
second law is based on an intelligent source. The unintelligent natural
environment is not capable to provide life with such ability to defy the
second law and to enable life.
And the second law only applies in closed systems. Luckily there is a
big hot object called the sun which is providing energy, and increasing
its own entropy.
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Post by John Ritson
What in the second law of thermodynamics stops a change of one
letter in the genetic code?
The second law does not affect life.
So then it wouldn't be a law.
Post by aaa
The second law refutes
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
evolution and abiogenesis.
Only in your crazed interpretation, which forbids even a one-letter
change in the genetic code.
Post by aaa
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You are just making things up. The second law says no such thing. You
do not understand it or you are deliberately misrepresenting what it
says.
That's just your speculation. You have not been able to prove that there
is anything wrong with my understanding of the second law.
Apart from the fact that your crazed interpretation would forbid even a
one-letter change in the genetic code.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-09 17:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how
to come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific
point of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and
even observed taking place.
That's completely false. It's all political propaganda with no real
science in it. Evolution isn't science to begin with.
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science, you
would know that all those things are just junks done by people who
have no idea about the difference between science and philosophy. They
don't know what they are doing.
What does "philosophy" have to do with it?
Bugs that develop immunity to DDT are not engaged
in philosophy, they altering their DNA via evolution
to deal with the threat.

Watching a pepper moth change its camoflage to
deal with polllution is evolutionary, not philosophical.
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane
aaa
2017-04-10 02:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 11:46:41 AM UTC-4, Bob
Post by Bob
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:33:38 -0400, Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you
do the only thing you can do, spew more of your ad
hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute
anything, what you're really saying is you agree with
the video? You think everything said in the video is
true. You just don't know how to come right out and
actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a
scientific point of view there is therefore nothing in ID
to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and even observed
taking place.
That's completely false. It's all political propaganda with no
real science in it. Evolution isn't science to begin with.
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science, you
would know that all those things are just junks done by people who
have no idea about the difference between science and philosophy.
They don't know what they are doing.
What does "philosophy" have to do with it? Bugs that develop immunity
to DDT are not engaged in philosophy, they altering their DNA via
evolution to deal with the threat.
False. Bugs are life. The fact that they are capable to "develop"
anything is the evidence of their intelligence. To understand why and
how their intelligence has enabled them to accomplish such amazing feat
is a matter of philosophy instead of science because intelligence is
always a subject of philosophical study alone. Science can only study
bugs. It can not study the intelligence of the bugs.
Watching a pepper moth change its camoflage to deal with polllution
is evolutionary, not philosophical.
That's a stupid elementary philosophical mistake. The ability to deal
with anything is an ability of life. It can't be explained
scientifically because science does not explain ability. Ability is the
function of intelligence. It can only be explained philosophically
instead of scientifically.
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-10 08:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 11:46:41 AM UTC-4, Bob
Post by Bob
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:33:38 -0400, Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you
do the only thing you can do, spew more of your ad
hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute
anything, what you're really saying is you agree with
the video? You think everything said in the video is
true. You just don't know how to come right out and
actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a
scientific point of view there is therefore nothing in ID
to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and even observed
taking place.
That's completely false. It's all political propaganda with no
real science in it. Evolution isn't science to begin with.
If you have read my explanations why evolution isn't science, you
would know that all those things are just junks done by people who
have no idea about the difference between science and philosophy.
They don't know what they are doing.
What does "philosophy" have to do with it? Bugs that develop immunity
to DDT are not engaged in philosophy, they altering their DNA via
evolution to deal with the threat.
False. Bugs are life. The fact that they are capable to "develop"
anything is the evidence of their intelligence. To understand why and
how their intelligence has enabled them to accomplish such amazing feat
is a matter of philosophy instead of science because intelligence is
always a subject of philosophical study alone. Science can only study
bugs. It can not study the intelligence of the bugs.
Watching a pepper moth change its camoflage to deal with polllution
is evolutionary, not philosophical.
That's a stupid elementary philosophical mistake. The ability to deal
with anything is an ability of life. It can't be explained
scientifically because science does not explain ability. Ability is the
function of intelligence. It can only be explained philosophically
instead of scientifically.
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
Post by aaa
Post by Adam A. Wanderer
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-17 12:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and
even observed taking place.
That's completely false. It's all political propaganda with no real
science in it. Evolution isn't science to begin with.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Creationism, on the other hand..........
On the other hand, Creationism is the real philosophy that science has
nothing to say to object.
Stop lying, aaashole.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-17 14:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:40:07 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the
only thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what
you're really saying is you agree with the video? You think
everything said in the video is true. You just don't know how to
come right out and actually say it.
It's all good...
ID has nor put forth one testable hypothesis. From a scientific point
of view there is therefore nothing in ID to refute.
Neither has evolution.
Evolution has been documented, tested, and
even observed taking place.
That's completely false. It's all political propaganda with no real
science in it. Evolution isn't science to begin with.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Creationism, on the other hand..........
On the other hand, Creationism is the real philosophy that science has
nothing to say to object.
Stop lying, aaashole.
If these liars pretend "all we ever do is call people liars", this one
has given a perfect example why.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-07 20:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.youtube.com/watch-Bob-playing with himself/
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

http://youtu.be/DjFgcOId-ZY

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

http://youtu.be/F1ibEaIPtMk

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-08 01:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the only
thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what you're
really saying is you agree with the video? You think everything said in
the video is true. You just don't know how to come right out and
actually say it.
It's all good...
You have it bass-ackward as usual.
It is you who has to prove that anything in your video was actually true.
ToE having been long established as true by observation and by testing and being accepted as true by every non-religious scientific organisation in the world, and by every University and the Catholic Church has been refined over the last 150 years and became even more helpful with the discovery of DNA has withstood every silly pseudo-science attack on it over the years and nobody, and I mean NOBODY has ever shown it to be false.

There is no crisis in the scientific world over ToE and there hasn't been for 149 years. Religious stupidity is not an effective weapon against the truth.
You lose. Again.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-08 05:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
https://www.youtube.com/watch-Bob-eating-shit-again/
McLatchie ? [snip]
Again, you show that you cannot refute anything, so you do the only
thing you can do, spew more of your ad hominem.
Don't you see that by not being able to refute anything, what you're
really saying is you agree with the video? You think everything said
in the video is true. You just don't know how to come right out and
actually say it.
It's all good...
You have it bass-ackward as usual.
It is you who has to prove that anything in your video was actually
true. ToE having been long established as true by observation and by
testing and being accepted as true by every non-religious scientific
organisation in the world, and by every University and the Catholic
Church has been refined over the last 150 years and became even more
helpful with the discovery of DNA has withstood every silly
pseudo-science attack on it over the years and nobody, and I mean
NOBODY has ever shown it to be false.
There is no crisis in the scientific world over ToE and there hasn't
been for 149 years. Religious stupidity is not an effective weapon
against the truth. You lose. Again.
Excellent points!!! Thanks. Here's another way of putting it to Bob:

<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
2017-04-08 06:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am more of a sick. I found that a few months back and probably posted all of it here.

It is one of my favorites.
That and 50 simple proofs God is Imaginary.

The problem is that if we are to believe that any of these people are as religious as they claim they will never be convinced of anything we say or anyone says.

They reject the sounded theory there is ToE. How much more backward can one be.

If they are trolls as I suspect then nothing we or anybody else says is going to matter because they don't really care. Only idiots and trolls could claim there are problems with Evolution.
Adam A. Wanderer
2017-04-08 11:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I am more of a sick. I found that a few months back and probably posted all of it here.
It is one of my favorites.
That and 50 simple proofs God is Imaginary.
The problem is that if we are to believe that any of these people are
as religious as they claim they will never be convinced of anything we
say or anyone says.
They reject the sounded theory there is ToE. How much more backward can one be.
If they are trolls as I suspect then nothing we or anybody else says
is going to matter because they don't really care. Only idiots and
trolls could claim there are problems with Evolution.
Good points. This sums it all up:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
Tim
2017-04-07 17:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
Specified complexity is nonsense:

A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design, characterizing this approach as an argument from ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity
Davej
2017-04-07 17:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/ywLIGvyo75k
This IDiot throws Noah's Ark in the trash and agrees with
evolution except for the question of whether it is "random
mutations" or "magic pixie mutations."

Of course he has no evidence for his magic mutations other
than "gosh life is so complex."
Loading...