Darwin Was Not The First To Propose Evolution

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

Atlatl Axolotl

2018-02-14 23:25:39 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,
at least as far as Erasmus Darwin and (famously) Lamarck are concerned.

What Darwin did was not to introduce the concept; what Darwin did
was to propose a plausible mechanism. This allowed the concept of
evolution to move from idle speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

AtlAxo

Andrew

2018-02-14 19:24:54 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.

"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Marvin Sebourn

2018-02-15 02:13:25 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

hypatiab7

2018-02-15 15:23:56 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.
Marvin Sebourn

The greatest block to progress has always been religions and the people who control them.

v***@gmail.com

2018-02-15 16:46:16 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.
Marvin Sebourn

The greatest block to progress has always been religions and the people who control them.

That's a lie

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

Dreamer In Colore

2018-02-15 17:56:56 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.
Marvin Sebourn

The greatest block to progress has always been religions and the people who control them.

That's a lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

You know, for a guy that says he's Jewish, you sure do love you your
Catholics.

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

You don't even care enough about the subject to check them out?

Or maybe you're Jewish when it's convenient? That's a distinct
possibility.

Of course, "Jewish" doesn't imply "practicing"... so we don't have a
good grasp on how many of these people were in fact religious.

I'll tell you one thing, though. You made me do some digging, because
I'm a curious sort. And I had no idea that Charles Townes, the
inventor of the maser AND the laser, Nobel prize winner, kick-ass
experimental physicist... was devoutly religious and prayed every day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Townes

Hyapatia is generally correct though; the odd instance of
scientifically-minded religious people isn't enough to mitigate for
the colossal damage done in the name of religions over the centuries.

v***@gmail.com

2018-02-15 18:41:49 UTC

Post by Dreamer In Colore

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.
Marvin Sebourn

The greatest block to progress has always been religions and the people who control them.

That's a lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

You know, for a guy that says he's Jewish, you sure do love you your
Catholics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates
You don't even care enough about the subject to check them out?
Or maybe you're Jewish when it's convenient? That's a distinct
possibility.
Of course, "Jewish" doesn't imply "practicing"... so we don't have a
good grasp on how many of these people were in fact religious.
I'll tell you one thing, though. You made me do some digging, because
I'm a curious sort. And I had no idea that Charles Townes, the
inventor of the maser AND the laser, Nobel prize winner, kick-ass
experimental physicist... was devoutly religious and prayed every day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Townes
Hyapatia is generally correct though; the odd instance of
scientifically-minded religious people isn't enough to mitigate for
the colossal damage done in the name of religions over the centuries.

That's a lie

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

b***@m.nu

2018-02-15 18:02:01 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.
Marvin Sebourn

The greatest block to progress has always been religions and the people who control them.

That's a lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

No wait that's a lie..

No it was a lie for me to say it was a lie

No The lie is bruno

no that is a lie

No now I am lying about lying again, damn it

Does bruno even exist?

well of course...

AHH there is the lie

No the lie was the lie that was told when someone lied but then the
person claiming the lie is a liar and a whiney little attention whore
and that is surely no lie

hypatiab7

2018-02-15 19:09:02 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.
Marvin Sebourn

The greatest block to progress has always been religions and the people who control them.

That's a lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

Not all scientists were protected by the Church if what they found didn't support clergical 'knowledge' or belonged to a different religion. You
know this Church symp ArtieJoe. You just don't want to think about it.

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2018-02-15 21:11:39 UTC

Post by hypatiab7
Not all scientists were protected by the Church if what they found didn't support clergical 'knowledge'

You continue to bash Christianity but when your Jewish ancestors had power they
slaughtered non-Jews; they themselves documented that they championed genocide (e.g. the Bible OT).

--
No hands-off free-ride for Judaism in alt.atheism.

Malcolm McMahon

2018-02-16 10:08:33 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.
Marvin Sebourn

The greatest block to progress has always been religions and the people who control them.

That's a lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

There certainly was a time when the Church was something of a patron of science. Less so after the Galileo spat. But I think the fault there was mostly Galileo's.

But then I don't think it was mostly the Church that was gunning for Darwin, that seems to be predominantly an American preoccupation. These days creationism is almost totally an American meme.

aaa

2018-02-15 19:26:02 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.
Marvin Sebourn

The greatest block to progress has always been religions and the people who control them.

The greatest mistake of science happens to be the total lack of
philosophical understanding about Life.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

aaa

2018-02-15 19:22:41 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Unfortunately (but predictably) Darwin was rejected by the willfully ignorant asses.

Actually, Darwin was accepted by the willfully ignorant asses who don't
understand the nature of life is spiritual and philosophical instead of
physical.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Marvin Sebourn

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

John Locke

2018-02-15 02:35:54 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact, supported by multiple
scientific disciplines. Those of us who understand science have moved
on. Creationism is a dead horse....you're talking to yourself in a
vacuum ! Can you hear the echo ?

Andrew

2018-02-15 05:13:45 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.

As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a
*fantasized mechanism*.

Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

Food for the gullible.

Post by John Locke
supported by multiple scientific disciplines. Those of us who
understand science have moved on. Creationism is a dead horse....
you're talking to yourself in a vacuum ! Can you hear the echo ?

Malcolm McMahon

2018-02-15 10:35:30 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a
*fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

aaa

2018-02-15 19:40:12 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
at least as far as Erasmus Darwin and (famously) Lamarck are concerned.
What Darwin did was not to introduce the concept; what Darwin
did was to propose a plausible mechanism.

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have
asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a
phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one
denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating
the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as
well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the
mechanism works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far
adaptation can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely
arbitrary barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Smiler

2018-02-15 23:54:03 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

aaa

2018-02-16 07:51:23 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability. It
has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
construction on top of the previous DNA structure. According to the
second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
energy into the newly created DNA structure. It's a process that moves
against the energy flow defined and determined by the second law. It's
like charging the battery or lifting up objects to a higher place
against gravity. Therefore, such process can not be an automatic process
randomly happening in the natural environment. It must rely on
intelligence to purposefully move against the natural physical law to
make it happen.

Pigs don't fly against gravity. Beneficial DNA change doesn't happen by
itself against the second law. Therefore, evolution is the pig that
flies in the mind of evolutionist.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Smiler

2018-02-17 01:09:32 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have
asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a
phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one
denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the
unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted
by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the
mechanism works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far
adaptation can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely
arbitrary barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

Not evidence, merely your insane belief.

Post by aaa
According to the
second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
energy into the newly created DNA structure.

In your world, do sodium and chlorine not combine to form salt?

Post by aaa
It's a process that moves
against the energy flow defined and determined by the second law.

Only your total misunderstanding of the second law.

Are there no sand dunes on your world?

Post by aaa
Pigs don't fly against gravity.

But your spiritual dragons do.

Post by aaa
Beneficial DNA change doesn't happen by
itself against the second law.

Yet it has been seen to happen.

Post by aaa
Therefore, evolution is the pig that flies in the mind of evolutionist.

Creationism is the spiritual dragon that flies, in the insane world of the theist.

aaa

2018-02-17 07:05:39 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have
asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a
phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one
denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the
unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted
by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the
mechanism works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far
adaptation can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely
arbitrary barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

Not evidence, merely your insane belief.

It will be evidence if you can't prove otherwise.

Post by aaa
According to the
second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
energy into the newly created DNA structure.

In your world, do sodium and chlorine not combine to form salt?

That's why salt does not burn, but organic matters do. It shows that the
organic matters are formed with preserved energy.

Post by aaa
It's a process that moves
against the energy flow defined and determined by the second law.

Only your total misunderstanding of the second law.

That's just your empty claim.

Are there no sand dunes on your world?

What do you mean?

Post by aaa
Pigs don't fly against gravity.

But your spiritual dragons do.

Irrelevant.

Post by aaa
Beneficial DNA change doesn't happen by
itself against the second law.

Yet it has been seen to happen.

But it's an incomplete observation. It overlooks the driving force that
has made it happen. There is no mutation. There is only intelligent design.

Post by aaa
Therefore, evolution is the pig that flies in the mind of evolutionist.

Creationism is the spiritual dragon that flies, in the insane world of the theist.

God's intelligent design is the perfect explanation for what happens to
life.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Atlatl Axolotl

2018-02-17 01:47:31 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
.> improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability.

No.

.> has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
.> construction on top of the previous DNA structure.

No.

.> According to the second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
.> energy into the newly created DNA structure.

No.

.>It's a process that moves against the energy flow defined and
.> determined by the second law.

No.

None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
as every other aerobic process in the body is.

This mutation did not produce a "new ability"; it simply modified a protein
responsible for transporting cholesterol from the tissues to the liver.
Those bearing this mutation are highly resistant to cardiovascular
disease, even in the face of a lifetime of poor diet and smoking.

It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.

AA

Post by aaa
It's
like charging the battery or lifting up objects to a higher place
against gravity. Therefore, such process can not be an automatic process
randomly happening in the natural environment. It must rely on
intelligence to purposefully move against the natural physical law to
make it happen.
Pigs don't fly against gravity. Beneficial DNA change doesn't happen by
itself against the second law. Therefore, evolution is the pig that
flies in the mind of evolutionist.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Ted

2018-02-17 02:05:00 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
.> improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability.
No.
.> has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
.> construction on top of the previous DNA structure.
No.
.> According to the second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
.> energy into the newly created DNA structure.
No.
.>It's a process that moves against the energy flow defined and
.> determined by the second law.
No.
None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
as every other aerobic process in the body is.
This mutation did not produce a "new ability"; it simply modified a protein
responsible for transporting cholesterol from the tissues to the liver.
Those bearing this mutation are highly resistant to cardiovascular
disease, even in the face of a lifetime of poor diet and smoking.
It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.
AA

You're so patient with these obstinate morons.

Atlatl Axolotl

2018-02-17 02:31:44 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
.> improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability.
No.
.> has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
.> construction on top of the previous DNA structure.
No.
.> According to the second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
.> energy into the newly created DNA structure.
No.
.>It's a process that moves against the energy flow defined and
.> determined by the second law.
No.
None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
as every other aerobic process in the body is.
This mutation did not produce a "new ability"; it simply modified a protein
responsible for transporting cholesterol from the tissues to the liver.
Those bearing this mutation are highly resistant to cardiovascular
disease, even in the face of a lifetime of poor diet and smoking.
It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.
AA

.> You're so patient with these obstinate morons.

And to no effect. We've been through this exact example before.

And I was told that "I don't need your scientific knowledge", as
"You don't know what you are dealing with and who you are talking to.
We are not discussing science".

AA

Ted

2018-02-17 02:59:06 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
.> improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability.
No.
.> has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
.> construction on top of the previous DNA structure.
No.
.> According to the second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
.> energy into the newly created DNA structure.
No.
.>It's a process that moves against the energy flow defined and
.> determined by the second law.
No.
None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
as every other aerobic process in the body is.
This mutation did not produce a "new ability"; it simply modified a protein
responsible for transporting cholesterol from the tissues to the liver.
Those bearing this mutation are highly resistant to cardiovascular
disease, even in the face of a lifetime of poor diet and smoking.
It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.
AA

.> You're so patient with these obstinate morons.
And to no effect. We've been through this exact example before.
And I was told that "I don't need your scientific knowledge", as
"You don't know what you are dealing with and who you are talking to.
We are not discussing science".
AA

Yeah, we're not discussing science, we're just making shit up.

v***@gmail.com

2018-02-17 03:04:10 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
at least as far as Erasmus Darwin and (famously) Lamarck are
concerned.
What Darwin did was not to introduce the concept; what Darwin did
was to propose a plausible mechanism.

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
.> improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability.
No.
.> has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
.> construction on top of the previous DNA structure.
No.
.> According to the second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
.> energy into the newly created DNA structure.
No.
.>It's a process that moves against the energy flow defined and
.> determined by the second law.
No.
None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
as every other aerobic process in the body is.
This mutation did not produce a "new ability"; it simply modified a protein
responsible for transporting cholesterol from the tissues to the liver.
Those bearing this mutation are highly resistant to cardiovascular
disease, even in the face of a lifetime of poor diet and smoking.
It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.
AA

.> You're so patient with these obstinate morons.
And to no effect. We've been through this exact example before.
And I was told that "I don't need your scientific knowledge", as
"You don't know what you are dealing with and who you are talking to.
We are not discussing science".
AA

Yeah, we're not discussing science, we're just making shit up.

Finally, one of you atheist clods admitted the truth.

Cloud Hobbit

2018-02-17 03:16:57 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
at least as far as Erasmus Darwin and (famously) Lamarck are
concerned.
What Darwin did was not to introduce the concept; what Darwin did
was to propose a plausible mechanism.

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
.> improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability.
No.
.> has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
.> construction on top of the previous DNA structure.
No.
.> According to the second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
.> energy into the newly created DNA structure.
No.
.>It's a process that moves against the energy flow defined and
.> determined by the second law.
No.
None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
as every other aerobic process in the body is.
This mutation did not produce a "new ability"; it simply modified a protein
responsible for transporting cholesterol from the tissues to the liver.
Those bearing this mutation are highly resistant to cardiovascular
disease, even in the face of a lifetime of poor diet and smoking.
It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.
AA

.> You're so patient with these obstinate morons.
And to no effect. We've been through this exact example before.
And I was told that "I don't need your scientific knowledge", as
"You don't know what you are dealing with and who you are talking to.
We are not discussing science".
AA

Yeah, we're not discussing science, we're just making shit up.

Finally, one of you atheist clods admitted the truth.

All the atheists here admit the truth, you are lying, low life, piece of shit.

v***@gmail.com

2018-02-17 05:16:08 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
at least as far as Erasmus Darwin and (famously) Lamarck are
concerned.
What Darwin did was not to introduce the concept; what Darwin did
was to propose a plausible mechanism.

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
.> improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability.
No.
.> has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
.> construction on top of the previous DNA structure.
No.
.> According to the second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
.> energy into the newly created DNA structure.
No.
.>It's a process that moves against the energy flow defined and
.> determined by the second law.
No.
None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
as every other aerobic process in the body is.
This mutation did not produce a "new ability"; it simply modified a protein
responsible for transporting cholesterol from the tissues to the liver.
Those bearing this mutation are highly resistant to cardiovascular
disease, even in the face of a lifetime of poor diet and smoking.
It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.
AA

.> You're so patient with these obstinate morons.
And to no effect. We've been through this exact example before.
And I was told that "I don't need your scientific knowledge", as
"You don't know what you are dealing with and who you are talking to.
We are not discussing science".
AA

Yeah, we're not discussing science, we're just making shit up.

Finally, one of you atheist clods admitted the truth.

All the atheists here admit the truth, you are lying, low life, piece of shit.

https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz

aaa

2018-02-17 06:46:46 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
.> improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability.
No.
.> has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
.> construction on top of the previous DNA structure.
No.
.> According to the second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
.> energy into the newly created DNA structure.
No.
.>It's a process that moves against the energy flow defined and
.> determined by the second law.
No.
None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
as every other aerobic process in the body is.
This mutation did not produce a "new ability"; it simply modified a protein
responsible for transporting cholesterol from the tissues to the liver.
Those bearing this mutation are highly resistant to cardiovascular
disease, even in the face of a lifetime of poor diet and smoking.
It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.
AA

..> You're so patient with these obstinate morons.
And to no effect. We've been through this exact example before.
And I was told that "I don't need your scientific knowledge", as
"You don't know what you are dealing with and who you are talking to.
We are not discussing science".

That's my comment about evolution. You should keep it from the
discussion of the second law to maintain the purity of science and
philosophy. Evolution does mix up philosophy and science, but we shouldn't.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

aaa

2018-02-17 06:41:47 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

..> My evidence is based on the fact that a beneficial DNA change is an
..> improved orderly construction which provides life with new ability.
No.
..> has reduced entropy level than the previous DNA structure. It's a new
..> construction on top of the previous DNA structure.
No.
..> According to the second law, such construction process requires the preservation of
..> energy into the newly created DNA structure.
No.
..>It's a process that moves against the energy flow defined and
..> determined by the second law.
No.
None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
as every other aerobic process in the body is.

Wrong. It may not need the preservation of energy to remove an
"arginine" from the DNA, but it does need the preservation of energy to
add a "cysteine" into the DNA. The chain of DNA is formed by preserved
energy. Any addition or modification to the chain would need extra
energy to be preserved.

This is a simple application of the second law. There is no way you can
walk around it.

This mutation did not produce a "new ability"; it simply modified a protein
responsible for transporting cholesterol from the tissues to the liver.
Those bearing this mutation are highly resistant to cardiovascular
disease, even in the face of a lifetime of poor diet and smoking.

That's strange. What you described looks just like a new ability to me.

It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.

I disagree.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Atlatl Axolotl

2018-02-17 11:38:41 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> > None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
.> > mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
.> > inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
.> > is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
.> > did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
.> > It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
.> > It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
.> > as every other aerobic process in the body is.
.> Wrong. It may not need the preservation of energy to remove an
.> "arginine" from the DNA, but it does need the preservation of energy to
.> add a "cysteine" into the DNA. The chain of DNA is formed by preserved
.> energy. Any addition or modification to the chain would need extra
.> energy to be preserved.

Wow.

You have absolutely no idea what I just described, do you?

What happened was that a molecule of RNA polymerase made a copying error.
It did not "remove an arginine". Where in the world did you get that idea?

Answer that, and we'll have a basis for further correcting your misapprenension
of the entire process. A strictly characterized biochemical process that you
clearly have no understanding of.

Deal?

AA

Post by aaa
This is a simple application of the second law. There is no way you can
walk around it.

That's strange. What you described looks just like a new ability to me.

It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.

I disagree.

--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

aaa

2018-02-17 14:37:46 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes? I assume most people interested in evolution know that,

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism
works, except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation
can go. And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary
barrier of "species", a purely human concept.

The most basic element of evolution by the name of random mutation
doesn't really work. It contradicts the second law by assuming the
beneficial DNA change as the result of random chance.

Your evidence that it can't result in a beneficial change is what?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

.> > None of the above are true. You were previously given the example of a beneficial
.> > mutation that was the result of a simple copying error. A cysteine was
.> > inserted where the correct copy would have been an arginine. This
.> > is not a "construction". It was not "more orderly". Changing one nucleotide
.> > did not reduce the entropy of the multi-ten-million nucleotide chromosome.
.> > It no more required the "preservation of energy" than a correct copy would have.
.> > It does not "move against the energy flow"; it's driven by ATP, just
.> > as every other aerobic process in the body is.
.> Wrong. It may not need the preservation of energy to remove an
.> "arginine" from the DNA, but it does need the preservation of energy to
.> add a "cysteine" into the DNA. The chain of DNA is formed by preserved
.> energy. Any addition or modification to the chain would need extra
.> energy to be preserved.
Wow.
You have absolutely no idea what I just described, do you?
What happened was that a molecule of RNA polymerase made a copying error.
It did not "remove an arginine". Where in the world did you get that idea?
Answer that, and we'll have a basis for further correcting your misapprenension
of the entire process. A strictly characterized biochemical process that you
clearly have no understanding of.
Deal?

Deal.

Since you insist on the details, I would like to point to my previous
comment where I mentioned that the entire chain of DNA molecule is
formed by preserved energy. In other words, it means that for every
nucleotide you add to the DNA chain, there must be preserved energy to
be built into it. It doesn't matter you call it a copying error or a
fresh start for a brand new DNA molecule. The process happening in the
DNA has to be based on the available preserved energy. Without such
preserved energy, there is no possibility for the DNA to make any proteins.

Am I making myself clear?

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA

Post by aaa
This is a simple application of the second law. There is no way you can
walk around it.

That's strange. What you described looks just like a new ability to me.

It's a strikingly beneficial mutation, and it fits none of the four
claims you made about beneficial mutations.

I disagree.

--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Andrew

2018-02-15 19:13:31 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a
*fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.

The odd thing is that you accept that all the elements of the mechanism works,

Natural selection helps to eliminate the unfit. It does not "Create" the fit.

Post by Malcolm McMahon
except that you imagine arbitrary limits on how far adaptation can go.

No further than the genetic information that resides in the gene pool of
that reproducing species.

Post by Malcolm McMahon
And, AFAIKS, those limits are set at the entirely arbitrary barrier of
"species", a purely human concept.

For the "goo to you" hypothesis to work, there would need to be a vast
amount of new genetic information all along the process. It's not there.
So the hypothesis fails.

hypatiab7

2018-02-15 16:26:33 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a
*fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.
Food for the gullible.

He only hears what he wants to hear. He believes in creationist pseudoscience
and copies the words of science in a religious way. He doesn't want to prove science. He only wants to prove that his mythology is right.

Ted

2018-02-15 16:30:00 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a
*fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.
Food for the gullible.

Truth is unimportant to those people. They imagine their god will bless
them for lying.

hypatiab7

2018-02-15 17:54:00 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a
*fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.
Food for the gullible.

Truth is unimportant to those people. They imagine their god will bless
them for lying.

That's what it says in the New Testament. It's okay to lie for the purpose
of converting someone. A lie is a lie, and they don't care. Proselytizers and evangelists are not moral people when they lie.

v***@gmail.com

2018-02-15 18:39:52 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a
*fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.
Food for the gullible.

Truth is unimportant to those people. They imagine their god will bless
them for lying.

That's what it says in the New Testament. It's okay to lie for the purpose
of converting someone.

Cite the passage.

Smiler

2018-02-15 23:56:14 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have
asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a
phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create
the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted
by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.
Food for the gullible.

He only hears what he wants to hear. He believes in creationist
pseudoscience and copies the words of science in a religious way.
He doesn't want to prove science. He only wants to prove that his
mythology is right.

Truth is unimportant to those people. They imagine their god will
bless them for lying.

That's what it says in the New Testament. It's okay to lie for the
purpose of converting someone.

Cite the passage.

We will, just as soon as you provide evidence that you were in the navy, ArtyJoe.

v***@gmail.com

2018-02-16 00:05:55 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have
asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a
phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create
the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted
by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a *fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.
Food for the gullible.

He only hears what he wants to hear. He believes in creationist
pseudoscience and copies the words of science in a religious way.
He doesn't want to prove science. He only wants to prove that his
mythology is right.

Truth is unimportant to those people. They imagine their god will
bless them for lying.

That's what it says in the New Testament. It's okay to lie for the
purpose of converting someone.

Cite the passage.

We will, just as soon as you provide evidence that you were in the navy, ArtyJoe.

I provided evidence, but you lazy cowards ran away from it.

Ted

2018-02-16 00:27:33 UTC

How do you know I eat shit?

We proved you eat shit, ArtyJoe.

You provided evidence, but I'm a lazy coward and ran away from it.

Yep.

John Locke

2018-02-15 17:32:13 UTC

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:26:33 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

..the theory of evolution is a proven fact,

Depends on how you define evolution.
As far as Darwinism goes, it has only a
*fantasized mechanism*.
Therefore it is unproven pseudoscience.
Food for the gullible.

...but then he's done just the opposite. By posting his creationist
pseudoscience nonsense to a group of well educated, rational
atheists, he's managed to get his magic god "theory" thoroughly and
completely debunked. Thanks to Andrew,creationism has been exposed for
what it really is...a fool's errand. That's a plus.

Thats a plus !

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2018-02-15 20:13:29 UTC

Post by John Locke
...but then he's done just the opposite. By posting his creationist
pseudoscience nonsense to a group of well educated, rational
atheists, he's managed to get his magic god "theory" thoroughly and
completely debunked. Thanks to Andrew,creationism has been exposed for
what it really is...a fool's errand. That's a plus.

Andrew, like duke, is our friend.

--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.

Andrew

2018-02-15 19:12:44 UTC

Post by John Locke
...but then he's done just the opposite. By posting his creationist
pseudoscience nonsense to a group of well educated, rational
atheists, he's managed to get his magic god "theory" thoroughly
and completely debunked. Thanks to Andrew,creationism has
been exposed for what it really is...a fool's errand. That's a plus.

And John! While you are here, why is it that you
always run off whenever I ask you this question?

"Explain what is the "naturalistic only" origin of
*biological information* apart from a creation."

Since you can not explain it, therefore it remains
as irrefutable evidence for Creation, and that you
have been deceived.

aaa

2018-02-15 19:33:56 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

Since evolution is a philosophical theory of life, it can't be supported
by your multiple scientific disciplines. Philosophy is greater than
science. It rules over science to direct and predict scientific study. A
real philosophy doesn't need to be supported by science. Since evolution
can only rely on science as its justification, it's obviously useless to
science, and it obviously doesn't have any real justification for itself.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Smiler

2018-02-16 00:00:18 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating
the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

Since evolution is a philosophical theory of life,

Only in your demented mind.

Post by aaa
it can't be supported by your multiple scientific disciplines.

Yet it is

Post by aaa
Philosophy is greater than science.

Only in your demented mind.

Post by aaa
It rules over science to direct and predict scientific study.

Your evidence for that nonsense is what?

Post by aaa
A real philosophy doesn't need to be supported by science.

Bullshit.

Post by aaa
Since evolution
can only rely on science as its justification, it's obviously useless to
science, and it obviously doesn't have any real justification for itself.

Word salad.

aaa

2018-02-16 08:15:27 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating
the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

Since evolution is a philosophical theory of life,

Only in your demented mind.

A theory of life can only be philosophical. That's the way determined by
nature. It will not change just because you are not capable to understand.

Post by aaa
it can't be supported by your multiple scientific disciplines.

Yet it is

That's why it's a terrible mistake for not understanding life and
philosophy.

Post by aaa
Philosophy is greater than science.

Only in your demented mind.

That is the way it is regardless whether you like it or not.

Post by aaa
It rules over science to direct and predict scientific study.

Your evidence for that nonsense is what?

That is what philosophy is supposed to do, and that is why there is the
need to study philosophy. Philosophy is the master of natural physical
science because philosophy has greater access to the truth that natural
physical science is based on.

Post by aaa
A real philosophy doesn't need to be supported by science.

Bullshit.

No. Philosophy is only justified by the truth it's trying to explain. If
it doesn't explain the truth, it has no use for anything. Evolution has
nothing of its own that can be recognized by all as being true. That's
why it must rely on natural science to justify itself. It's not capable
to guide the natural science with the truth it doesn't have.

The so called evolutionary prediction is just a typical logical fallacy
of circular argument. Such prediction is based on natural science, and
it presumes to predict for natural science again. It plays natural
science like a stupid toy, and all the brilliant minds in natural
science are played as fools.

Post by aaa
Since evolution
can only rely on science as its justification, it's obviously useless to
science, and it obviously doesn't have any real justification for itself.

Word salad.

That's a rather simple logical statement. I'm not sure why you can't
understand it.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Smiler

2018-02-17 01:21:36 UTC

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:24:54 -0000, "Andrew"

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the
fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

Since evolution is a philosophical theory of life,

Only in your demented mind.

A theory of life can only be philosophical.

Evolution is not a theory of life. It's the theory of how life changes.
That is where you're making your mistake.

Post by aaa
That's the way determined by
nature. It will not change just because you are not capable to
understand.

Evolution will not change because of your insane ideas.

Post by aaa
it can't be supported by your multiple scientific disciplines.

Yet it is

That's why it's a terrible mistake for not understanding life and
philosophy.

Evolution is science and in no way related to your idiotic idea of philosophy.

Post by aaa
Philosophy is greater than science.

That is the way it is regardless whether you like it or not.

Prove it, liar.

Post by aaa
It rules over science to direct and predict scientific study.

Your evidence for that nonsense is what?

That is what philosophy is supposed to do,

Only in your insane mind.

Post by aaa
and that is why there is the need to study philosophy.

Then why haven't you studied philosophy?

Post by aaa
Philosophy is the master of natural physical
science because philosophy has greater access to the truth that natural
physical science is based on.

Bullshit.

Post by aaa
A real philosophy doesn't need to be supported by science.

Bullshit.

No. Philosophy is only justified by the truth it's trying to explain. If
it doesn't explain the truth, it has no use for anything.

How do you know when it reaches the truth?

Post by aaa
Evolution has
nothing of its own that can be recognized by all as being true.

Except tons and tons of evidence.

Post by aaa
That's
why it must rely on natural science to justify itself.

Evolution _is_ natural science, moron.

Post by aaa
It's not capable
to guide the natural science with the truth it doesn't have.

Word salad.

Post by aaa
The so called evolutionary prediction is just a typical logical fallacy
of circular argument. Such prediction is based on natural science, and
it presumes to predict for natural science again. It plays natural
science like a stupid toy, and all the brilliant minds in natural
science are played as fools.

More word saad.

Post by aaa
Since evolution can only rely on science as its justification, it's
obviously useless to science, and it obviously doesn't have any real
justification for itself.

Word salad.

That's a rather simple logical statement.

Nope, no logic there. Just your insanity.

Post by aaa
I'm not sure why you can't understand it.

I know exactly why you don't understand it. You're insane.

aaa

2018-02-17 07:50:47 UTC

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:24:54 -0000, "Andrew"

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the
fit as well."
~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle speculation
to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was accepted by
the gullible masses.

Since evolution is a philosophical theory of life,

Only in your demented mind.

A theory of life can only be philosophical.

Evolution is not a theory of life. It's the theory of how life changes.
That is where you're making your mistake.

Same difference. Without understanding what life is, there is no way to
know or predict how life changes. That is the major mistake of evolution
because evolution doesn't really know what life is.

All those who pretend to study evolution should go back to school to
learn philosophy and understand life, starting from Mr. Dawkins.

Post by aaa
That's the way determined by
nature. It will not change just because you are not capable to understand.

Evolution will not change because of your insane ideas.

Evolution has already been proven wrong. It doesn't matter whether it's
going to change.

Post by aaa
it can't be supported by your multiple scientific disciplines.

Yet it is

That's why it's a terrible mistake for not understanding life and
philosophy.

Evolution is science and in no way related to your idiotic idea of philosophy.

No. Science is only the fig leafs of evolution. The theory of evolution
is nothing like Newton's Law or Einstein's formula. It's just mental
brain fart with absolutely no scientific substance.

Post by aaa
Philosophy is greater than science.

That is the way it is regardless whether you like it or not.

Prove it, liar.

Philosophy is the study of the truth. Science is the study of the
physical things that have been proven true by the truth. So philosophy
deals with the fundamental, and science deals with the subordinate.
That's why philosophy dominates science.

Post by aaa
It rules over science to direct and predict scientific study.

Your evidence for that nonsense is what?

That is what philosophy is supposed to do,

Only in your insane mind.

No. It's a simple fact.

Post by aaa
and that is why there is the need to study philosophy.

Then why haven't you studied philosophy?

I do study philosophy. I talk about it everyday, don't I?

Post by aaa
Philosophy is the master of natural physical
science because philosophy has greater access to the truth that natural
physical science is based on.

Bullshit.

No. That is a simple fact too.

Post by aaa
A real philosophy doesn't need to be supported by science.

Bullshit.

No. Philosophy is only justified by the truth it's trying to explain. If
it doesn't explain the truth, it has no use for anything.

How do you know when it reaches the truth?

Because the truth is open to all. When something is true, everyone will
see it and understand it without difficulty.

Post by aaa
Evolution has
nothing of its own that can be recognized by all as being true.

Except tons and tons of evidence.

All of them are fakes.

Post by aaa
That's
why it must rely on natural science to justify itself.

Evolution _is_ natural science, moron.

That's just a mistaken belief. It's entirely abstract and philosophical.

Post by aaa
It's not capable
to guide the natural science with the truth it doesn't have.

Word salad.

More word saad.

That's simple fact again.

Post by aaa
Since evolution can only rely on science as its justification, it's
obviously useless to science, and it obviously doesn't have any real
justification for itself.

Word salad.

That's a rather simple logical statement.

Nope, no logic there. Just your insanity.

That's blind denial.

Post by aaa
I'm not sure why you can't understand it.

I know exactly why you don't understand it. You're insane.

I'm sure that's all you can say.

--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

Mitchell Holman

2018-02-17 13:50:31 UTC

Post by aaa
Philosophy is the study of the truth. Science is the study of the
physical things that have been proven true by the truth. So philosophy
deals with the fundamental, and science deals with the subordinate.
That's why philosophy dominates science.

Post by aaa
It rules over science to direct and predict scientific study.

Your evidence for that nonsense is what?

That is what philosophy is supposed to do,

Only in your insane mind.

No. It's a simple fact.

Post by aaa
and that is why there is the need to study philosophy.

Then why haven't you studied philosophy?

I do study philosophy.

Wrong.

"I never bothered to read philosophy."
"aaa", April 23, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/l2gt9ku

Atlatl Axolotl

2018-02-15 05:20:58 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

And of course both your carefully mined quotes have been
debunked before, by the simple act of including their
fuller context.

But you really don't give a shit, do you?

Doesn't really speak well of Christianity, your own private version thereof.

AA

Andrew

2018-02-15 05:13:07 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

And of course both your carefully mined quotes have been
debunked before, by the simple act of including their
fuller context.

They were not misquoted, and what they said was true.

hypatiab7

2018-02-15 15:26:51 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

And of course both your carefully mined quotes have been
debunked before, by the simple act of including their
fuller context.

They were not misquoted, and what they said was true.

We knew you'd say that, parrot.

Atlatl Axolotl

2018-02-15 16:41:13 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Yes but the problem is, it was really only-->a phantasized
mechanism.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and
I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy." ~ C.D.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural
selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in
eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it
create the fit as well." ~ S.J.Gould

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This allowed the concept of evolution to move from idle
speculation to a topic for serious investigation.

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.

.> > And of course both your carefully mined quotes have been
.> > debunked before, by the simple act of including their
.> > fuller context.

Post by Andrew
They were not misquoted, and what they said was true.

"There is no God"
~~ Andrew, on this very group, many times.

Not misquoted.

Merely dishonestly quote mined.

You know it and I know it.

Happily for my view of Christianity, I've known many
a Christian who's not intellectually dishonest, not
the way you are.

AA

Cloud Hobbit

2018-02-15 05:31:55 UTC

But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.
_________

The gullible masses being nearly every scientist on earth and almost every institution of higher learning on earth.

The phantasy is yours and the other idiots who deny the truth of evolution.

Andrew

2018-02-15 05:13:28 UTC

Post by Andrew
But unfortunately it was based on a phantasy and it was
accepted by the gullible masses.
_________
The gullible masses being nearly every scientist on earth and almost every
institution of higher learning on earth.
The phantasy is yours and the other idiots who deny the truth of evolution.

Evolution has been going on ever since the Beginning, because it has been
programmed into the original Creation by our most awesome Creator; but
always within the genetic limits of a reproducing species.

Tim

2018-02-15 10:47:01 UTC