The Failure of Darwin's Theory

"Darwin's Doubt": The book that no scientist can refute.

JTEM

2019-01-19 18:14:23 UTC

Only an oxygen deprived moron "Believes in"
Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.

...Darwin was the antithesis of science!
He never tested his ideas, never experimented,
instead arguing what passed for "Logic" in
his mind and what observations he made he
carefully cherry picked. Nothing about the man
was original.

Seriously, do fools honestly think it was a
coincidence that he was onboard a ship heading
for the Galapagos? He just 'Threw the dice' did
he? Got lucky landing someplace where he could
claim to have made discoveries?

Darwin is a myth. Jackasses who can't tell reality
from fairy tales "Believe in" Darwin...

You know, the collective.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182119026453

Mitchell Holman

2019-01-19 18:38:55 UTC

Post by JTEM
Only an oxygen deprived moron "Believes in"
Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.
...Darwin was the antithesis of science!
He never tested his ideas, never experimented,
instead arguing what passed for "Logic" in
his mind and what observations he made he
carefully cherry picked. Nothing about the man
was original.
Seriously, do fools honestly think it was a
coincidence that he was onboard a ship heading
for the Galapagos? He just 'Threw the dice' did
he? Got lucky landing someplace where he could
claim to have made discoveries?
Darwin is a myth. Jackasses who can't tell reality
from fairy tales "Believe in" Darwin...
You know, the collective.

Evolution observed

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

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

http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058

JTEM

2019-01-19 21:55:40 UTC

"Darwin" is not an alternative spelling for
the word "Evolution."

Write that 100 times.

Evolution observed

Your mental illness is observed. After all, you think
Darwin somehow "Discovered" or "Invented" evolution.

Darwin was a fraud who SET BACK biology. He was never
a scientist.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182145345213

Ron Dean

2019-01-20 05:57:56 UTC

Evolution observed
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058

Charles Darwin was a fool!

----------- A t h e i s t ------------

2019-01-22 18:56:27 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman
Evolution observed
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058

Do any of those show observed speciation? Evolution is more than
simple "change" in a species.

--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Atheist: anyone who says "I don't buy the 'a god exists' claim".
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is _THE_ foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
Christian: a person afraid of a hiding apparently imaginary god.

Mitchell Holman

2019-01-22 19:19:36 UTC

Do any of those show observed speciation? Evolution is more than
simple "change" in a species.

That, like fossilization, requires more
time. Therefore expect the "fossilization
cannot be replicated in the lab therefore
it doesn't happen" argument.

Ron Dean

2019-01-27 20:05:45 UTC

Do any of those show observed speciation? Evolution is more than
simple "change" in a species.

That, like fossilization, requires more
time. Therefore expect the "fossilization
cannot be replicated in the lab therefore
it doesn't happen" argument.

There are some very strong arguments against Darwinism.

Mitchell Holman

2019-01-28 02:31:17 UTC

Post by Ron Dean

Do any of those show observed speciation? Evolution is more than
simple "change" in a species.

That, like fossilization, requires more
time. Therefore expect the "fossilization
cannot be replicated in the lab therefore
it doesn't happen" argument.

There are some very strong arguments against Darwinism.

But no proven alternatives.........

Christopher A. Lee

2019-01-28 04:08:48 UTC

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 20:31:17 -0600, Mitchell Holman

Post by Ron Dean

Do any of those show observed speciation? Evolution is more than
simple "change" in a species.

That, like fossilization, requires more
time. Therefore expect the "fossilization
cannot be replicated in the lab therefore
it doesn't happen" argument.

There are some very strong arguments against Darwinism.

But no proven alternatives.........

There is no such thing as "Darwinism" any more than "Einsteinism",
"Newtonism", etc.

As usual, a dishonest creationist says there are arguments against
something he doesn't even try to understand, without saying what they
are. Does he imagine this fools anybody apart from his fellow stupid,
ignorant creationists?

JTEM

2019-02-07 03:59:15 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is no such thing as "Darwinism" any more than "Einsteinism",
"Newtonism", etc.

Hey, fucked up shit stain:

Einstein had a valid theory.

Newton actually came up with one better than a theory:

"Laws."

Newton came up with the "Laws of Motion."

hypothesis explains the evidence, a theory is a
hypothesis that explains the evidence so well,
or it has withstood the test of time & experiment,
so that it has become generally regarded as true.
Beyond "Theory" there are "Laws," which are true,
as far as everyone is concerned. So we have the
Newtonian Laws of Motion or the Mendelian Laws of
Heredity...

Darwin was a fucking idiot who came up with a quack
"Theory" -- Pangenesis -- which he largely plagiarized,
exactly like the few good ideas he published. The man
stole from Wallace and got everything else wrong.

Big. Difference.

But, hey, nobody can be surprised that you can't tell
the difference between real science, real theories and
quackery.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182621046668

v***@gmail.com

2019-02-07 07:52:35 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 20:31:17 -0600, Mitchell Holman

Post by Ron Dean

Do any of those show observed speciation? Evolution is more than
simple "change" in a species.

That, like fossilization, requires more
time. Therefore expect the "fossilization
cannot be replicated in the lab therefore
it doesn't happen" argument.

There are some very strong arguments against Darwinism.

But no proven alternatives.........

There is no such thing as "Darwinism"

That's a LIE. From the Merriam Webster Dictionary

Darwinism noun
Dar·win·ism | \ ˈdär-wə-ˌni-zəm \
Definition of Darwinism
1 : a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors
— compare EVOLUTION sense 1, NEO-DARWINISM

----------- A t h e i s t ------------

2019-01-27 05:33:35 UTC

Do any of those show observed speciation? Evolution is more than
simple "change" in a species.

No, no speciation. I wonder why Holman feels the need to lie.

Mitchell Holman

2019-01-27 14:24:21 UTC

Do any of those show observed speciation?

There is more to evolution than speciation.

Post by ----------- A t h e i s t ------------
Evolution is more than
simple "change" in a species.

"Evolution is ---> change <--- in the heritable
characteristics of biological populations
over successive generations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Post by ----------- A t h e i s t ------------
No, no speciation. I wonder why Holman feels the need to lie.

What lie?

Christopher A. Lee

2019-01-27 15:15:02 UTC

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 08:24:21 -0600, Mitchell Holman

Do any of those show observed speciation?

Irrelevant. It's evolution.

Post by Mitchell Holman
There is more to evolution than speciation.

Obviously.

What makes these loonies so stupid and so dishonest?

As you say, evolution isn't just speciation - it's the change in
allele frequencies in populations. Speciation is almost an edge
condition.

Bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance. Rats and mice evolved Warfarin
resistance, Rabbits evolved myxomatosis resistance after that was
introduced in Australia to try and kill the non-native species that
was a serious agricultural pest, etc.

The Liars For God even admit this.

But if they want speciation, all they need to do is Google "Observed
instances of speciation" and they will find plenty on the talk.origins
web site which was set up to educate the wilfully ignorant.

It's simply not controversial outside the imagination of American
religious loonies.

Post by ----------- A t h e i s t ------------
Evolution is more than
simple "change" in a species.

"Evolution is ---> change <--- in the heritable
characteristics of biological populations
over successive generations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

They have their own Orwellian redefinition of the word, so they can
say it doesn't exist.

Post by ----------- A t h e i s t ------------
No, no speciation. I wonder why Holman feels the need to lie.

What lie?

The one he invented and attributed to you.

----------- A t h e i s t ------------

2019-01-28 07:57:40 UTC

Do any of those show observed speciation?

There is more to evolution than speciation.

You have not observed speciation, the "holy grail" of evidence.

I'm not disputing that evolution is a fact, just the apparent
"observing" fraud (likely concocted to "refute" IDers).

It might help if you post what, specifically, of significance was
observed (I don't chase urls).

Mitchell Holman

2019-01-28 13:51:56 UTC

Do any of those show observed speciation?

There is more to evolution than speciation.

You have not observed speciation, the "holy grail" of evidence.

You haven't observed planet formation,
does that mean it doesn't happen?

Post by ----------- A t h e i s t ------------
I'm not disputing that evolution is a fact, just the apparent
"observing" fraud (likely concocted to "refute" IDers).
It might help if you post what, specifically, of significance was
observed (I don't chase urls).

Read the links provided.

----------- A t h e i s t ------------

2019-01-28 22:37:43 UTC

Do any of those show observed speciation?

There is more to evolution than speciation.

You have not observed speciation, the "holy grail" of evidence.

You haven't observed planet formation,
does that mean it doesn't happen?

Planets form, speciation occurs, and variations occur within species.

You're a liar with your "observed" evolution fraud.

Read the links provided.

A typical response of a liar with wild goose chase urls.

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-29 04:15:40 UTC

Do any of those show observed speciation?

There is more to evolution than speciation.

You have not observed speciation, the "holy grail" of evidence.

You haven't observed planet formation,
does that mean it doesn't happen?

Planets form, speciation occurs, and variations occur within species.
You're a liar with your "observed" evolution fraud.

Read the links provided.

A typical response of a liar with wild goose chase urls.

The only goose here is yours, A t h e i s t, and Mr Holman cooked it, well done.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by ----------- A t h e i s t ------------
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Atheist: anyone who says "I don't buy the 'a god exists' claim".
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is _THE_ foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
Christian: a person afraid of a hiding apparently imaginary god.

----------- A t h e i s t ------------

2019-01-29 22:12:54 UTC

Do any of those show observed speciation?

There is more to evolution than speciation.

You have not observed speciation, the "holy grail" of evidence.

You haven't observed planet formation,
does that mean it doesn't happen?

Planets form, speciation occurs, and variations occur within species.
You're a liar with your "observed" evolution fraud.

Read the links provided.

A typical response of a liar with wild goose chase urls.

The only goose here is yours, A t h e i s t, and Mr Holman cooked it, well done.
Marvin Sebourn

Idiot.

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-19 19:58:39 UTC

Darwin ever tested ideas, never experimented?
Really?

From the book: Darwin's Backyard: How Small Experiments Led to a Big Theory 1st Edition by James T. Costa:

Using his (Darwin's) garden and greenhouse, the surrounding meadows and woodlands, and even taking over the cellar, study, and hallways of his home-turned-field-station, Darwin TESTED IDEAS (emphasis mine) of his landmark theory of evolution with an astonishing array of hands-on EXPERIMENTS (emphasis mine, as are following emphases) that could be done on the fly, without specialized equipment.

He engaged naturalists, friends, neighbors, family servants, and even his children, nieces, nephews, and cousins as assistants in these EXPERIMENTS, which involved everything from chasing bees and tempting fish to eat seeds to serenading earthworms. From the EXPERIMENTSs’ results, he plumbed the laws of nature and evidence for the revolutionary arguments of On the Origin of Species and his other watershed works.

From a Google search "Darwin’s EXPERIMENTS":

Darwin's EXPERIMENTS - The natural selection
www.brunette.brucity.be/pegase/darwin/enexp1.htm

Doing Darwin's EXPERIMENTS | Darwin Correspondence Project
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk › Learning Resources › Ages 11-14

Recreate Darwin's EXPERIMENTS In Your Backyard - Science Friday
https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/recreate-darwins-EXPERIMENTS-in-your-backyard/

Darwin 200: Eight EXPERIMENTS you can try at home | New Scientist
https://www.newscientist.com/.../mg20126957-500-darwin-200-eight-EXPERIMENTS-yo..

A Darwin EXPERIMENTS - Plants In Motion
plantsinmotion.bio.indiana.edu/plantmotion/projects/darwin/darwinspmp.html

Darwin's Earthworm EXPERIMENTS Broke New Ground : NPR
https://www.npr.org/2009/02/12/.../darwins-earthworm-EXPERIMENTS-broke-new-ground

Seriously.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by JTEM
instead arguing what passed for "Logic" in
his mind and what observations he made he
carefully cherry picked. Nothing about the man
was original.
Seriously, do fools honestly think it was a
coincidence that he was onboard a ship heading
for the Galapagos? He just 'Threw the dice' did
he? Got lucky landing someplace where he could
claim to have made discoveries?
Darwin is a myth. Jackasses who can't tell reality
from fairy tales "Believe in" Darwin...
You know, the collective.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182119026453

JTEM

2019-01-19 22:11:45 UTC

Ah, Belief in Darwin is based on a lack of focus
& reading comprehension...

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Using his (Darwin's) garden and greenhouse, the surrounding meadows and woodlands, and even taking over the cellar, study, and hallways of his home-turned-field-station, Darwin TESTED IDEAS (emphasis mine) of his landmark theory of evolution with an astonishing array of hands-on EXPERIMENTS

Darwin's theory was called "Pangenesis," not "Evolution."

"Common Descent" was already old before Darwin started
plagiarizing people, and evolution had ALWAYS been a
part of it.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Darwin's EXPERIMENTS - The natural selection
www.brunette.brucity.be/pegase/darwin/enexp1.htm

It's not source material, there are no experiments named
much less described.

Your "Experiments" came AFTER evolution, and evolution
did not come from Darwin. They also had NOTHING to do
with evolution. He was trying to explain how plants
travel across the ocean!

The source material quoted by a number of your cites --
"Darwin's Backyard" -- was published in 2017, btw.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182070284348

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-20 00:19:30 UTC

Post by JTEM
Ah, Belief in Darwin is based on a lack of focus
& reading comprehension...
...Darwin was the antithesis of science!
He never tested his ideas, never experimented...

Darwin ever tested ideas, never experimented?
Really?"
<End of JTEM snip>

And that is the point of my post. JTEM wrote that "He (Darwin) never tested his ideas, never experimented..." And I questioned the truth of his statement. And JTEM snipped that.

Darwin's theory was called "Pangenesis," not "Evolution."

This, as you should have seen, was a quote. I never stated this, nor questioned this, and it is immaterial here.

Post by JTEM
"Common Descent" was already old before Darwin started
plagiarizing people, and evolution had ALWAYS been a
part of it.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Darwin's EXPERIMENTS - The natural selection
www.brunette.brucity.be/pegase/darwin/enexp1.htm

It's not source material, there are no experiments named
much less described.

I should have checked this specific URL more thoroughly. It mentions experiments, but does not describe them.

But JTEM conveniently ignores the five or so references to describe Darwin's experiments.

Post by JTEM
Your "Experiments" came AFTER evolution,

Meaningless and vague. You made no chronological reference in your claim that "He (Darwin) never tested his ideas, never experimented..."

And interesting that you do acknowledge Darwin's experiments. About time.

Post by JTEM
and evolution
did not come from Darwin.

I never said it did.

Post by JTEM
They also had NOTHING to do
with evolution. He was trying to explain how plants
travel across the ocean!

What? So what? You said nothing about Darwin never testing his ideas or never experimented on evolution. You only made the very broad statement that Darwin did no testing or experimentation.

Post by JTEM
The source material quoted by a number of your cites --
"Darwin's Backyard" -- was published in 2017, btw.

I see, roughly, one of the cites that mentions Darwin's Backyard", three that originated in 2009-eight years prior to the publication of the book, and one or two others with no date mentioned.

JTEM, If you lack further proof, examine Darwin's work on earthworms.

So there it is, dear, sleepy reader.

JTEM's original claim that "He (Darwin)never tested his ideas, never experimented..." is shown to be false.

JTEM's reply to my first post in this thread concerning Darwin is shown to have snipped a critical phrase.

The general path of the "reasoning" in JTEM's post has been shown to be similar in direction and meaning to the drunkard's walk.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182070284348

JTEM

2019-01-20 05:17:30 UTC

Actually, you proved my point with your dogmatic
defense of Darwin. He honestly is a religious
figure -- a God -- to many.

Your cites don't really establish anything as their
source material is a book published in 2017, and
they have nothing to do with evolution.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182145162408

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-20 16:29:46 UTC

Post by JTEM
Actually, you proved my point with your dogmatic
defense of Darwin.

Don’t be childish, John. That is not true. What I did was to refute your claim that Darwin “never tested his ideas, never experimented”. I pointed out that Darwin did test his ideas, and experimented, and this is in no way a “dogmatic defense of Darwin”.

Post by JTEM
He honestly is a religious
figure -- a God -- to many.

That has nothing to do with whether or not Darwin tested his ideas or experimented.

Post by JTEM
Your cites don't really establish anything as their
source material is a book published in 2017,

My cites do establish something, and that something is that you are not honest here in your attempts at argument. The posting date on at least three of the cites is 2009. That’s quite a trick, that you claim a work published in 2017 was the source material for works published in 2009.

Post by JTEM
and they have nothing to do with evolution.

Your claim I contested mentioned nothing of testing and experimentation concerning evolution.

And you ignored this following sentence of mine, and snipped it.

“JTEM, If you lack further proof, examine Darwin's work on earthworms.”

John, you have made wholesale snips, misrepresented what I said, and made false claims which you cannot, or have not supported. I'd give it up or acknowledge that you misspoke. Further verbal contortions by you only bring further embarrassment to yourself.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182145162408

JTEM

2019-01-21 04:04:17 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Don’t be childish, John. That is not true. What I did was to refute your claim that Darwin “never tested his ideas, never experimented”.

With source material from 2017? I don't think so. And
my statement were not without context, which was Darwin's
theory -- PANGENESIS -- and the misattribution to him of
evolution.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I pointed out that Darwin did test his ideas

No, the claim is that he tested "AN" idea, long after
Origin of Species, and an idea that really is quite
separate & distinct from evolution.

What "Experiments" did he perform to defend his theory
of Pangenesis?

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182167470773

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-21 23:18:19 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Don’t be childish, John. That is not true. What I did was to refute your claim that Darwin “never tested his ideas, never experimented”.

With source material from 2017?

So you believe, somehow, that a book published in 2017 cannot reference records of years ago? How do you know that the book does not make reference to records of Darwin‘s tests and experiments? And that was a small part of my cites.

Post by JTEM
I don't think so.

You can believe anything you want to. Stated as you did, it requires absolutely no proof. And proves absolutely nothing.

Post by JTEM
And my statement were (sic) not without context, which was Darwin's
theory -- PANGENESIS -- and the misattribution to him of
evolution.

Yes, it was without limiting context. Your statement was: “He never tested his ideas, never experimented...“ At no place in this sentence or paragraph or post did you restrict Darwin‘s testing or experimenting to evolution.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I pointed out that Darwin did test his ideas

No, the claim is that he tested "AN" idea, long after
Origin of Species, and an idea that really is quite
separate & distinct from evolution.

No, the claim was that you said that “He never tested his ideas, never experimented...“ I didn‘t claim that Darwin tested all his ideas, although I should have said "some", since I don't know that he tested all his ideas. All I needed to do was show that Darwin tested some of his ideas to prove your claim false that “He never tested his ideas, never experimented...“

Post by JTEM
What "Experiments" did he perform to defend his theory
of Pangenesis?

At no place in this sentence or paragraph or post did you restrict Darwin‘s testing or experimenting to evolution, so any replies here are unnecessary.

And if you still are in denial, do this one thing (I cited this work three times previously for you)-examine Darwin's "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits" and then say he never tested his ideas, or experimented.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182167470773

JTEM

2019-01-22 19:02:46 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So you believe, somehow, that a book published in 2017 cannot reference records of years ago?

This is alt atheism. You're not supposed to be making
it about beliefs.

If you want to show that Darwin said something, quote
Darwin. Don't quote a 2017 book.

But none of it matters as they are all crediting this
"Science" to Darwin some two decades AFTER his Origin
of Species. AND, it's outside the context of evolution.
So you seem to be saying that even if he was a racist,
elitist, dishonest, plagiarizing buffoon who all by
himself HELD BACK science on the topic of evolution, you
think he tried to prove something really dumb with salt
water and seeds and this makes up for everything.

Darwin's "Theory" was called Pangenesis. Show us the
scientific experiments.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182218998488

a322x1n

2019-01-22 21:31:07 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So you believe, somehow, that a book published in 2017 cannot
reference records of years ago?

This is alt atheism. You're not supposed to be making
it about beliefs.
If you want to show that Darwin said something, quote
Darwin. Don't quote a 2017 book.
But none of it matters as they are all crediting this
"Science" to Darwin some two decades AFTER his Origin
of Species. AND, it's outside the context of evolution.
So you seem to be saying that even if he was a racist,
elitist, dishonest, plagiarizing buffoon who all by
himself HELD BACK science on the topic of evolution, you
think he tried to prove something really dumb with salt
water and seeds and this makes up for everything.
Darwin's "Theory" was called Pangenesis. Show us the
scientific experiments.
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182218998488

I see it's time to once again post the _huge_ amount of data proving
that Evolution is pure truth, while also proving that creationism
and intelligent design is pure lies. All praise to Darwin and his
great works, all condemnation to creationists and intelligent
designers! Feast on glorious truth:

<http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2014/12/19/intelligent-design-
still-dead/>

<http://tinyurl.com/kwyrtku>

<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism>

<http://tinyurl.com/y9k48wq4>

<https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/07/a-n-wilson-stale-
unoriginal-banal-cliche-ridden-hack/>

<http://tinyurl.com/ybu9u4et>

<http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/ken-hams-10-facts-
that-prove-creationism-debunked/>

<http://tinyurl.com/hor4bam>

Modern Christian: Someone who can take time
out from blasting evolution as "perpetrated fraud"
and "junk science" to demand the latest medical
advances from evolutionary biology be used on them
when THEY get sick.

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

<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

<https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm>

<http://tinyurl.com/kzzmt4g>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>

<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>

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

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

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

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>

<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>

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

<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

JTEM

2019-01-22 23:27:03 UTC

I see it's once again time to prove that the
collective is SEVERELY mentally ill...

Post by a322x1n
I see it's time to once again post the _huge_ amount of data proving
that Evolution is pure truth

The topic isn't evolution, it's Darwin, and Darwin's
theory is called Pangenesis, not evolution.

Once again you react to a conversation that exists only
inside your own head...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182224036583

a322x1n

2019-01-23 06:41:35 UTC

Post by JTEM
I see it's once again time to prove that the
collective is SEVERELY mentally ill...

Post by a322x1n
I see it's time to once again post the _huge_ amount of data proving
that Evolution is pure truth

The topic isn't evolution, it's Darwin, and Darwin's
theory is called Pangenesis, not evolution.
Once again you react to a conversation that exists only
inside your own head...
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182224036583

Please educate yourself:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis#After_pangenesis

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

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

Patrick

2019-01-23 08:24:50 UTC

Post by a322x1n

Post by JTEM
The topic isn't evolution, it's Darwin, and Darwin's
theory is called Pangenesis, not evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis#After_pangenesis

The Big bang model is based on the General Theory of Relativity of
Albert Einstein (1879-1955). In this model, space is curved around a
stellar object, and our universe is inherently curved and convoluted.
The universe is a 4-dimensional manifold and cannot be grasped with
our senses. This is because four dimensions are not the simple
addition of three space plus one time dimension. A 4-dimensional
object is quite different than a 3-dimensional object moving in space.
It is an object that expands and contracts and vibrates within
our three-dimensional space.
2-dimensional observer existing on the surface of the paper will
observe a single point. As the sphere moves through the paper the
point will expand to a circle And as time does by the circle will
contract until it becomes a point again..
A similar situation is valid for our observation of the universe. We
can observe only 3-dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Let
us imagine that we are a two-dimensional observer existing on the flat
paper. We are not capable to see the whole of the 3-dimensional
sphere, but only its cross section on the paper.

The motion of the sphere will appear first as a point, and that point
will expand gradually. So, in a very similar manner, the 4-dimensional
universe seems to start from a point (the Big Bang) and expands as
time goes by (present observation). It is very probable that it will
contract in the distant future. But this contraction will be a mere
observation. The universe did not start from a point singularity and
will not end in a point singularity (the Big Crunch).

But the expansion of our universe comes hand in hand with a discrete
and continuous vibration. This means that as the universe expands it
also vibrates with a very high frequency. Each vibration is a quantum
fluctuation which creates small irregularities and density variations
of the 4-dimensional manifold. The vibration is observed as a wave
motion in our 3-dimensional field of view. This is why the
electromagnetic field has a constantly vibrating wave motion. The
discrete vibration appears to us as a discrete quantum of energy. This
is what Einstein called a Photon whose energy was postulated
theoretically as E=hf by Max Planck (1858-1947). In that equation h is
the Planck constant (6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s) and f is the
frequency of the wave. Each vibration of the universe happens
in a very short time, All scientific experiments and human experiences
happen over billions of billions of billions of Planck times, making
any events happening at the Planck scale almost
impossible to detect. Such a small unit of time cannot be measured
with our present technology, but it is an important constant for our
theoretical understanding of the universe.

The present Big bang model accepts that nothing existed before the
Big Bang. But if nothing existed (neither space nor time) how could a
Quantum fluctuation happen? There should exist an energy field that
would vibrate in order for a Quantum fluctuation to happen.

Where did that energy field come from?

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-23 05:17:28 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So you believe, somehow, that a book published in 2017 cannot reference records of years ago?

This is alt atheism. You're not supposed to be making
it about beliefs.

No, that’s YOUR belief, among hundreds of other questionable beliefs you spout here for attention, such as divining rods, rods in photos, Darwin set back biology by a matter of decades, and other assorted woo. I don’t remember ONE belief of yours that you provided credible evidence for.

Post by JTEM
If you want to show that Darwin said something, quote
Darwin. Don't quote a 2017 book.

For the FIFTH time, I reference you to Darwin's "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits". Four times you have snipped this and ignored it. You're scared to look reality in the face, in the writings of Darwin.

Post by JTEM
But none of it matters as they are all crediting this
"Science" to Darwin some two decades AFTER his Origin
of Species. AND, it's outside the context of evolution.

What matters is that you could not defend your statement "He never tested his ideas, never experimented..." which you did not limit in any way, such as confining it to evolution.

Post by JTEM
So you seem to be saying that even if he was a racist,
elitist, dishonest, plagiarizing buffoon who all by
himself HELD BACK science on the topic of evolution, you
think he tried to prove something really dumb with salt
water and seeds and this makes up for everything.

Nope, what I am saying, not what you think I seem to be saying, is that you cannot support your statement. You try to weasel out of what you wrote. But you can't, even though you make more snips than someone snipping paper to make a snowflake design.

Post by JTEM
Darwin's "Theory" was called Pangenesis. Show us the
scientific experiments.

Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182218998488

JTEM

2019-01-23 05:32:01 UTC

Post by JTEM
This is alt atheism. You're not supposed to be making
it about beliefs.

No, that’s YOUR belief,

No, if there's one fact here that's it. Atheists aren't
supposed to make things about belief...

Post by Marvin Sebourn
among hundreds of other questionable beliefs you spout here for attention, such as divining rods,

What on earth do you BELIEVE I said about divining rods?

Oh, do tell! This ought to be tasty...

Post by Marvin Sebourn
rods in photos

Oo! Another one that I can't wait to hear about! Do
tell; what did I say about rods in photos?

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Darwin set back biology by a matter of decades

No, that's a fact. Darwin assumed the face of
naturalism, he rejected Mendel and it was about
20 more years before the English speaking world
reached the point it would have been at if it
had been someone worthy instead of Darwin...

Fact.

Darwin is a myth. Darwin is a BELIEF you hold. But,
the man was no scientist, he didn't invent or
discover evolution and his theory was call pangenesis.

It was pseudo science, btw.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182230088668

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-23 06:09:45 UTC

Post by JTEM
This is alt atheism. You're not supposed to be making
it about beliefs.

No, that’s YOUR belief,

No, if there's one fact here that's it. Atheists aren't
supposed to make things about belief...

Post by Marvin Sebourn
among hundreds of other questionable beliefs you spout here for attention, such as divining rods,

What on earth do you BELIEVE I said about divining rods?
Oh, do tell! This ought to be tasty...

Post by Marvin Sebourn
rods in photos

Oo! Another one that I can't wait to hear about! Do
tell; what did I say about rods in photos?

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Darwin set back biology by a matter of decades

No, that's a fact. Darwin assumed the face of
naturalism, he rejected Mendel and it was about
20 more years before the English speaking world
reached the point it would have been at if it
had been someone worthy instead of Darwin...
Fact.
Darwin is a myth. Darwin is a BELIEF you hold. But,
the man was no scientist, he didn't invent or
discover evolution and his theory was call pangenesis.
It was pseudo science, btw.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182230088668

JTEM snips? Why didn't you include these, from my prior post?

Post by JTEM
This is alt atheism. You're not supposed to be making
it about beliefs.

Post by JTEM
If you want to show that Darwin said something, quote
Darwin. Don't quote a 2017 book.

Post by JTEM
But none of it matters as they are all crediting this
"Science" to Darwin some two decades AFTER his Origin
of Species. AND, it's outside the context of evolution.

What matters is that you could not defend your statement "He never tested his ideas, never experimented..." which you did not limit in any way, such as confining it to evolution.

Post by JTEM
Darwin's "Theory" was called Pangenesis. Show us the
scientific experiments.

You wrote that "He (Darwin) never tested his ideas, never experimented..."
Don't quote a book, show in his writings that he never did that.

John, you have some talents.

You like to attract attention. You’re good at that, using outrageous claims, personal insults designed to garner notice, many bizarre personal beliefs yo don't support, and evasions and snippings of material you can’t counter.

You like to win your arguments. You’re very poor at that.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

For the SIXTH time, I refer you to Darwin's "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits"

Snipped five or six times.

Telling.

You're scared of facts, seeking attention only.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

JTEM

2019-01-23 06:22:00 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
among hundreds of other questionable beliefs

Again, atheists aren't supposed to be trying to
make everything about beliefs.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
you spout here for attention, such as divining rods,

Again, what did I say about diving rods?

You BELIEVE it relevant. You introduce the topic to
this thread, IMAGINE that I have said something that
is relevant here or colors perceptions... so what is
it?

You're not insane, are you? Then tell me. What is it
you want to BELIEVE that I said? How does it relate
to anything in this thread?

Or are you insane, and say these things -- REPEAT
THESE THINGS -- because you don't know any better?

Explain.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
For the SIXTH time, I refer you to Darwin's "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits"

AGAIN, FOR LIKE THE SIXTH TIME, it was published
22 years AFTER Origin of Species, it does NOT
relate in any way to his theory -- Pangenesis --
and it's not even on the topic of EVOLUTION.

How many MORE times do I have to point all this out?

Hmmm?

Darwin was a fraud. He was a racist, elitist, plagiarizing
fraud. He did NOT work out evolution. He didn't even
figure out "Common Descent." And, yes, as the face of
naturalism he personally was responsible for setting back
science by a matter of DECADES with his marginalization
of Mendel's work.

Shame on Darwin, shame on the idiots who idolize the
fraud pretending to be empirical...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182230088668

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-23 20:58:42 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
among hundreds of other questionable beliefs

Again, atheists aren't supposed to be trying to
make everything about beliefs.

Mistaken identity. That is you.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
you spout here for attention, such as divining rods,

Again, what did I say about diving rods?

Nothing about "diving" (sic) rods. Stay focused. Use the most of your minimal reading comprehension skills. Divining rods, or dowsing rods are what you mentioned.

Post by JTEM
You BELIEVE it relevant. You introduce the topic to
this thread, IMAGINE that I have said something that
is relevant here or colors perceptions... so what is
it?
You're not insane, are you? Then tell me. What is it
you want to BELIEVE that I said? How does it relate
to anything in this thread?
Or are you insane, and say these things -- REPEAT
THESE THINGS -- because you don't know any better?
Explain.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
For the SIXTH time, I refer you to Darwin's "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits"

As many as you wish, to try and again hide away from your statement that "He (Darwin) never tested his ideas, never experimented..." that you cannot support, not specifying that it had to be related to evolution or pangenesis. You didn't disqualify any area of research.

Post by JTEM
Darwin was a fraud. He was a racist, elitist, plagiarizing
fraud. He did NOT work out evolution. He didn't even
figure out "Common Descent." And, yes, as the face of
naturalism he personally was responsible for setting back
science by a matter of DECADES with his marginalization
of Mendel's work.
Shame on Darwin, shame on the idiots who idolize the
fraud pretending to be empirical...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182230088668

JTEM wins the childhood playground award, first in both categories:

1) A first in..."Snipping Paper Doilies" out of the snips he does of others posts, in order that he does not have to support his statements.

2) A first in..."Hide-and-Go Seek", where JTEM can never be found to defend his statements.

Continue to stay on your primary school intellectual playground, little boy. You seem quite at home there.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

JTEM

2019-01-24 18:55:34 UTC

Post by JTEM
Again, atheists aren't supposed to be trying to
make everything about beliefs.

Mistaken identity. That is you.

That is a non sequitur.

Post by JTEM
Again, what did I say about diving rods?

Nothing

You wouldn't be evading like this if you didn't knew
you are wrong.

As the lady often says: {Crickets}

Post by Marvin Sebourn
For the SIXTH time, I refer you to Darwin's "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits"

As many as you wish, to try and again hide away from your statement that "He (Darwin) never tested his ideas

The subject, the context is evolution. You're claiming
that more than 20 years later, on a different topic,
after all the criticisms he received in his own time for
failing to test ideas, he tested a really dumb idea and
this flies back in time, leaps to another context and
proves that he was a genius... despite being a racist,
elitist, plagiarizing fool who never experimentally tested
his ideas.

Just admit that your made-up religious figure doesn't
actually exist. The Darwin you worship isn't real.

JTEM wins the childhood playground award

This is real life. You don't get to pick. The collective
wants to maliciously assault theists for believing in
God had it wants to also wants to maliciously attack anyone
who fails to believe in it's golden calf.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182258031883

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-25 03:17:52 UTC

Post by JTEM
Again, atheists aren't supposed to be trying to
make everything about beliefs.

Mistaken identity. That is you.

That is a non sequitur.

Post by JTEM
Again, what did I say about diving rods?

Nothing

You wouldn't be evading like this if you didn't knew
you are wrong.

I know I'm right, and that you're wrong here.

You wrote: “He never tested his ideas, never experimented...“
At no place in this sentence or paragraph or post did you restrict Darwin‘s testing or experimenting to evolution.

As the lady often says: {Crickets}

The cricket-lady is you in refusing to speak to refute my statement. The cricket-lady stays in her corner, making paper dollies out of the snips she has made.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
For the SIXTH time, I refer you to Darwin's "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits"

As many as you wish, to try and again hide away from your statement that "He (Darwin) never tested his ideas

Nope, another lie.

Post by JTEM
despite being
a "racist", a JTEM belief JTEM didn't support.
"elitist", a JTEM belief JTEM didn't support.
"plagiarizing" a JTEM belief JTEM didn't support.
"fool": a JTEM belief JTEM didn't support.
"who never experimentally tested his ideas." An obvious lie that you run from rather than disprove.
Just admit that your made-up religious figure doesn't
actually exist. The Darwin you worship isn't real.

I don't worship Darwin, nor hold him in religious regard. More lies from you.

JTEM wins the childhood playground award

This is real life. You don't get to pick.

I do. It was the overwhelming choice of what you term the collective.

Post by JTEM
The collective wants to maliciously assault theists for believing in
God

Rubbish.

Post by JTEM
had it wants to also wants to maliciously attack anyone
who fails to believe in it's golden calf.

What kind of dressing do you serve with that word salad?

Marvin Sebourn

Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182258031883

JTEM

2019-01-27 20:15:50 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I know I'm right

This is usenet. Let me tell you; that ain't exactly
uncharted ground!

HINT: Look up at the Subject: line!

So I suppose if you completely ignore all context,
certainly speaking outside the context of evolution
or any "Theory" Darwin came up with, you can find
some terribly stupid idea that Darwin went about
"Testing" in the most moronic fashion, and claim this
makes you technically "Right." But, if that were the
case why would you fly off on irrelevant tangents,
making positions up on other topics (dowsing, anybody?)
and then attributing them to me?

Seems you don't feel very "Right"...

Oh. And Darwin was still an idiot, an elitist, racist
plagiarist whose sole contribution to real science was
setting it back two decades by assuming the face of
naturalism & marginalizing Mendel.

...and you think it's the theists who worship
imaginary gods? Sheesh!

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/neanderthal

2019-01-27 20:20:38 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I know I'm right

This is usenet. Let me tell you; that ain't exactly
uncharted ground!
HINT: Look up at the Subject: line!
So I suppose if you completely ignore all context,
certainly speaking outside the context of evolution
or any "Theory" Darwin came up with, you can find
some terribly stupid idea that Darwin went about
"Testing" in the most moronic fashion, and claim this
makes you technically "Right." But, if that were the
case why would you fly off on irrelevant tangents,
making positions up on other topics (dowsing, anybody?)
and then attributing them to me?
Seems you don't feel very "Right"...
Oh. And Darwin was still an idiot, an elitist, racist
plagiarist whose sole contribution to real science was
setting it back two decades by assuming the face of
naturalism & marginalizing Mendel.
...and you think it's the theists who worship
imaginary gods? Sheesh!
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/neanderthal

no one talks about god more than an atheist

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-28 01:28:40 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I know I'm right

What I asked you to do was to support your statement that "He (Darwin) never tested his ideas, never experimented..." which you did not limit in any way, such as confining it to evolution. You failed.

Post by JTEM
But, if that were the
case why would you fly off on irrelevant tangents,

You were the one that went off-topic, to try and hide from you statement. I followed you a bit, hoping to bring you back to answer my question.

Post by JTEM
making positions up on other topics (dowsing, anybody?)
and then attributing them to me?

Because it was what you had written, and it showed your idea of conducting of an experiment. YOU found keys which YOU had misplaced. How convincing is that? JTEM magic.

Post by JTEM
Seems you don't feel very "Right"...

You don't know how I feel, although at this point I feel vastly superior to you concerning the conduct of arguments. And experiments. It's not much, likely everyone else here does also.

Post by JTEM
Oh. And Darwin was still an idiot, an elitist, racist
plagiarist whose sole contribution to real science was
setting it back two decades by assuming the face of
naturalism & marginalizing Mendel.

JTEM: Darwin was...an idiot..."
A JTEM belief, nowhere supported by JTEM.

(JTEM: Darwin was) "an elitist..."
A JTEM belief, nowhere supported by JTEM.

(JTEM: Darwin was) "...racist..."
A JTEM belief, nowhere supported by JTEM.

JTEM: Darwin was a) "...plagiarist..."
A JTEM belief, nowhere supported by JTEM.

John, you BELIEVE a lot, but you support nothing.

You post to insult.
You no longer show much skill, even in sophistry.
And you are terminally DULL in your posts.

If John had wanted to bring about a real discussion of abuse in science in 19th century England, there was another, better choice. John could have chosen another figure in science for his attack, someone during that general time period, and in that geographical area. Someone that did make considerable contributions to science, and upon occasion recognized the work of others, but was known even in his time for his plagiarism, his disrespect for others in his field, and using his influence to keep the work of others from being published.

The scientist in question is Richard Owen.

Yes, it’s another JTEM failure, a general one, repeated again and again. But a discussion of Owen would have been interesting.

But JTEM's failure is no surprise. That is John’s modus operandi, to try and put himself at the center of attention as an intellectual arbiter while ignoring the reasoning of others, snipping entire posts, and accusing others of gross stupidity, just for his personal minute in the spotlight. as he wanders far into the unknown.

Post by JTEM
...and you think it's the theists who worship
imaginary gods? Sheesh!

You think I worship Darwin? Prove it, loser. Dull loser.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/neanderthal

JTEM

2019-01-28 02:50:42 UTC

Post by JTEM
So I suppose if you completely ignore all context,
certainly speaking outside the context of evolution
or any "Theory" Darwin came up with, you can find
some terribly stupid idea that Darwin went about
"Testing" in the most moronic fashion, and claim this
makes you technically "Right."

What I asked you to do was to support your statement that "He (Darwin) never tested his ideas, never experimented..."

You asked me to prove a negative.

You know for a fact I'm right. Try as hard as you could
to defend your gospels, you couldn't find anything. You
had to find a 2017 "Citation" of something Darwin did
20 years AFTER Origin of Species THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE SUBJECT HERE, the context, and even then you
felt so insecure you made up some nonsense about Dowsing
and other topics then dishonestly attributed them to me.

Again, nobody would do that if they didn't feel insecure
in their position...

Post by JTEM
But, if that were the
case why would you fly off on irrelevant tangents,

You were the one that went off-topic

Doesn't explain why you were babbling about dowsing,
now does it?

And, again, read the subject line. The "Salt Seed"
dumb thing you referenced has nothing to do with
evolution or any theory of Darwin's.

Post by JTEM
making positions up on other topics (dowsing, anybody?)
and then attributing them to me?

Because it was what you had written

Nope. You introduced the topic here, and even then you
made up a position and attributed it to me.

Post by JTEM
Seems you don't feel very "Right"...

You don't know how I feel

Well, actually, there's some excellent indicators, like
your dowsing tangent, like you attributing your made-up
shit to me. A person who feels confident wouldn't be
compelled to act that way...

JTEM: Darwin was...an idiot..."

Oh, look, first you erased all context, then you went
on a "Dowsing" tangent that you made up & attributed to
me and now you're wallowing in ad hominem...

So:

Are you denying what I say above? You're claiming that
Darwin never became the face of naturalism? He didn't
marginalize Mendel? His one theory -- Pangenesis -- isn't
just Lamarckism with a really dumb "Gemmules" thing
tacked on?

Come on, pretend you have a leg to stand on and form an
actual "Argument." Do it. I dare you to.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182360025033

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-28 17:07:57 UTC

What I asked you to do was to support your statement that "He (Darwin) never tested his ideas, never experimented..."

You asked me to prove a negative.
You know for a fact I'm right. Try as hard as you could
to defend your gospels, you couldn't find anything. You
had to find a 2017 "Citation" of something Darwin did
20 years AFTER Origin of Species THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE SUBJECT HERE, the context, and even then you
felt so insecure you made up some nonsense about Dowsing
and other topics then dishonestly attributed them to me.
Again, nobody would do that if they didn't feel insecure
in their position...

Post by JTEM
But, if that were the
case why would you fly off on irrelevant tangents,

You were the one that went off-topic

Doesn't explain why you were babbling about dowsing,
now does it?
And, again, read the subject line. The "Salt Seed"
dumb thing you referenced has nothing to do with
evolution or any theory of Darwin's.

Post by JTEM
making positions up on other topics (dowsing, anybody?)
and then attributing them to me?

Because it was what you had written

Nope. You introduced the topic here, and even then you
made up a position and attributed it to me.

Post by JTEM
Seems you don't feel very "Right"...

You don't know how I feel

Well, actually, there's some excellent indicators, like
your dowsing tangent, like you attributing your made-up
shit to me. A person who feels confident wouldn't be
compelled to act that way...

JTEM: Darwin was...an idiot..."

Oh, look, first you erased all context, then you went
on a "Dowsing" tangent that you made up & attributed to
me and now you're wallowing in ad hominem...
Are you denying what I say above? You're claiming that
Darwin never became the face of naturalism? He didn't
marginalize Mendel? His one theory -- Pangenesis -- isn't
just Lamarckism with a really dumb "Gemmules" thing
tacked on?
Come on, pretend you have a leg to stand on and form an
actual "Argument." Do it. I dare you to.

A typical JTEM post. He snips the material of others, he hides from argument, he insults those he cannot counter, and he tries in his clumsy fashion to traduce others.

This pretty well sums up the talents of JTEM, and the characteristics of his posts: Snipping, Hiding, Insulting, Traducing.

It's easy to characterize JTEM's posts if you just keep the in mind the acronym:

S.H.I.T.

JTEM's posts are mostly that, probably all of his attempts at argument are...SHIT.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by JTEM
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182360025033

JTEM

2019-02-07 04:03:08 UTC

Post by JTEM
Are you denying what I say above? You're claiming that
Darwin never became the face of naturalism? He didn't
marginalize Mendel? His one theory -- Pangenesis -- isn't
just Lamarckism with a really dumb "Gemmules" thing
tacked on?
Come on, pretend you have a leg to stand on and form an
actual "Argument." Do it. I dare you to.

A typical JTEM post.

So answer already. Be very specific.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
It's easy to characterize JTEM's posts

So answer. You're running. You're hiding. But, you're not
answer. Steer yourself back on topic and answer the above.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182621046668

Peter Pan

2019-01-24 08:36:52 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So you believe, somehow, that a book published in 2017 cannot reference records of years ago?

This is alt atheism. You're not supposed to be making
it about beliefs.

No, thats YOUR belief, among hundreds of other questionable beliefs you spout here for attention, such as divining rods, rods in photos, Darwin set back biology by a matter of decades, and other assorted woo. I dont remember ONE belief of yours that you provided credible evidence for.

The jtem kook replied to your post by starting another
thread, "More blind, ignorant malice from the
collective", hoping you wouldn't notice.

Jtem isn't here to discuss. He's only interested in
spewing vexatious assholery. Whatever you say, his MO is
to snip, put words in your mouth, and reply to stuff you
didn't say. As you have discovered.

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-24 17:11:04 UTC

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So you believe, somehow, that a book published in 2017 cannot reference records of years ago?

This is alt atheism. You're not supposed to be making
it about beliefs.

The jtem kook replied to your post by starting another
thread, "More blind, ignorant malice from the
collective", hoping you wouldn't notice.
Jtem isn't here to discuss. He's only interested in
spewing vexatious assholery. Whatever you say, his MO is
to snip, put words in your mouth, and reply to stuff you
didn't say. As you have discovered.

And I didn't notice, Peter Pan. Thank you very much. I take his starting another thread as a full retreat.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

JTEM

2019-01-24 18:57:16 UTC

The

As you know, and hence switched to this sock puppet
in order to invent a consensus in your head -- I
challenged the collective MORE THAN ONCE to explain
itself in this thread, before creating another.

But don't worry. You can not fail to fool yourself.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182258031883

m***@gmail.com

2019-01-27 15:00:15 UTC

Post by Peter Pan

Post by Marvin Sebourn
So you believe, somehow, that a book published in 2017 cannot reference records of years ago?

This is alt atheism. You're not supposed to be making
it about beliefs.

The jtem kook replied to your post by starting another
thread, "More blind, ignorant malice from the
collective", hoping you wouldn't notice.
Jtem isn't here to discuss. He's only interested in
spewing vexatious assholery. Whatever you say, his MO is
to snip, put words in your mouth, and reply to stuff you
didn't say. As you have discovered.

JTEM is here to change the topic whenever it doesn't go his way and it
looks like people are starting to ignore him. He thinks that people won't notice that he's sneakily changing the topic, though he always gets caught.
The poor failure keeps on trying to be the center of attention, but this
never works for long. And since he's mentally warped, he'll return again
to lose again. He has no life.

JTEM

2019-01-27 20:16:56 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
JTEM is here to

It's not working. You still look like a moron hiding
behind a bevy of sock puppets.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/neanderthal

2019-01-27 20:21:06 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
JTEM is here to

It's not working. You still look like a moron hiding
behind a bevy of sock puppets.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/neanderthal

and you just look like a moron

Tim

2019-01-28 13:11:36 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
JTEM is here to

It's not working. You still look like a moron hiding
behind a bevy of sock puppets.

And you're still are an ineffectual faggot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Christopher A. Lee

2019-01-28 15:48:50 UTC

Post by Tim

Post by m***@gmail.com
JTEM is here to

It's not working. You still look like a moron hiding
behind a bevy of sock puppets.

And you're still are an ineffectual faggot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

He gets far too much transparently wrong for any of his bullshit, lies
and nastiness to be an honest mistake.

JTEM

2019-02-07 04:04:25 UTC

Post by Peter Pan
The jtem kook replied to your post by

I replied to the post first. Seriously, you need
to get raped.

This isn't working out for you, this usenet thing. You
need to go out and get yourself raped.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182621046668

Davej

2019-01-24 19:19:21 UTC

[...]
...Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.

Charles Darwin is pretty irrelevant at this point. I don't
really understand the ranting. Darwin made observations and
collected samples and wrote a book. Here you are ranting
about him 160 years later. I think you're 160 years late.

Christopher A. Lee

2019-01-24 20:49:36 UTC

[...]
...Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.

He;s also lying.

Darwin was a scientific giant, on a par with Newton and Einstein.

v***@gmail.com

2019-01-24 21:10:56 UTC

[...]
...Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.

He;s also lying.
Darwin was a scientific giant, on a par with Newton and Einstein.

ROTFL!

His theory was not even original:

In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859).
History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Ted

2019-01-25 00:55:06 UTC

[...]
...Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.

He;s also lying.
Darwin was a scientific giant, on a par with Newton and Einstein.

ROTFL!
In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed
his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory
of evolution. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published
a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859).
History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

The idea of natural selection was indeed original, Joe. There's a huge
qualitative difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism.

Christopher A. Lee

2019-01-25 01:15:41 UTC

On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:55:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted

[...]
...Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.

He;s also lying.
Darwin was a scientific giant, on a par with Newton and Einstein.

ROTFL!

An outright, deliberate lie from an ID creationist.

Post by v***@gmail.com
In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 1829) proposed
his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory
of evolution. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published
a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859).
History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Nobody ever said Darwin came up with evolution, imbecile. It was
already known and accepted by the educated and knowledgeable.

He came up with the first scientifically derived one, which superceded
Lamarck's, because his observations could not be explained within the
Lamarckian paradigm.

Lamarck proposed two theories - heredity by the inheritance of
acquired characteristics, and common descent from single celled
ancestors by family, eg a single celled ancestor for lions, tigers,
cats etc , another for dogs, wolves, foxes, etc, and so on.

Darwin had a single common ancestor, and random mutation with natural
selection. Which have survived the test of 160 years of objective
research.

But then the deliberate, proven serial liar knows all this because he
has had it explained many times.

But being Mad Joe, he has taken no notice and keeps repeating the same
horseshit, laced with condescending nastiness.

Post by Ted
The idea of natural selection was indeed original, Joe. There's a huge
qualitative difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism.

The raving loonie has had this explained repeatedly, but like the
other creationist loonies, he has a psychological need to lie about
Darwin to try and discredit him.

And as usual, he tries to attack atheists by lying about things that
are nothing to do with atheism.

He has never understood that if he wants to put somebody down, his
put-downs have to be valid.

Ted

2019-01-25 02:00:12 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:55:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted

[...]
...Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.

He;s also lying.
Darwin was a scientific giant, on a par with Newton and Einstein.

ROTFL!

An outright, deliberate lie from an ID creationist.

Post by v***@gmail.com
In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 1829) proposed
his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory
of evolution. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published
a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the
Origin of Species (1859).
History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Nobody ever said Darwin came up with evolution, imbecile. It was
already known and accepted by the educated and knowledgeable.
He came up with the first scientifically derived one, which superceded
Lamarck's, because his observations could not be explained within the
Lamarckian paradigm.
Lamarck proposed two theories - heredity by the inheritance of
acquired characteristics, and common descent from single celled
ancestors by family, eg a single celled ancestor for lions, tigers,
cats etc , another for dogs, wolves, foxes, etc, and so on.
Darwin had a single common ancestor, and random mutation with natural
selection. Which have survived the test of 160 years of objective
research.
But then the deliberate, proven serial liar knows all this because he
has had it explained many times.
But being Mad Joe, he has taken no notice and keeps repeating the same
horseshit, laced with condescending nastiness.

Post by Ted
The idea of natural selection was indeed original, Joe. There's a huge
qualitative difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism.

The raving loonie has had this explained repeatedly, but like the
other creationist loonies, he has a psychological need to lie about
Darwin to try and discredit him.
And as usual, he tries to attack atheists by lying about things that
are nothing to do with atheism.
He has never understood that if he wants to put somebody down, his
put-downs have to be valid.

Good points and, as usual, I greatly appreciate your sharing your
knowledge, Christopher. Thank you.

JTEM

2019-01-27 20:27:45 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody ever said Darwin came up with evolution, imbecile.

Nobody? Not ever? Anywhere?

Well, let's be honest, with all that excitement you
were feelings after watching abiogenesis being
reproduced in a lab, you probably missed the last
century-plus.

Could happen to anyone, I'm sure.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/neanderthal

Ron Dean

2019-01-27 20:14:33 UTC

[...]
...Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.

He;s also lying.
Darwin was a scientific giant, on a par with Newton and Einstein.

ROTFL!
In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859).
History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Evolution is non-falsifiable, therefore not really a bona fide science.

Ron Dean

2019-01-27 20:10:49 UTC

[...]
...Darwin. He was a racist, elitist fraud who
made-up everything that he didn't plagiarize.

He;s also lying.
Darwin was a scientific giant, on a par with Newton and Einstein.

No! Compared to Newton and Einstein he was in minor leagues.

JTEM

2019-01-27 20:24:45 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Darwin was a scientific giant

You misspelled "Plagiarist."

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/neanderthal

JTEM

2019-01-27 20:24:05 UTC

Post by JTEM
I don't
really understand the ranting.

True for many. But...

Look. If they're not willing or capable of reexamining
Darwin, redrawing your perception of the man then how
can they pretend to speak of science? Or history? And
how can you expect anyone else to NOT hold them in
contempt?

That's the point. It's not about Darwin, he's dead and
gone. It's about the stubborn, rude and even violent
defense of a fairy tale, something that is the opposite
of the truth, by people who claim to care about reality.

I'm not looking back 160 years ago, I'm looking at the
people today.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/neanderthal

Davej

2019-01-28 03:17:48 UTC

Post by JTEM
Look. If they're not willing or capable of reexamining
Darwin, redrawing your perception of the man then how
can they pretend to speak of science? Or history? And
how can you expect anyone else to NOT hold them in
contempt?

If Charles Darwin didn't exactly discover evolution, because
it was a concept that had been floating around since the
ancient Greek philosophers, and you feel he didn't describe
it accurately enough, then who did? Most people feel that
Darwin did a better job of lining up supporting evidence and
expressing a coherent overview than anyone else had previously.

JTEM

2019-01-28 03:27:15 UTC

Post by Davej
If Charles Darwin didn't exactly discover evolution

He didn't exactly discover it, he didn't inexactly
discover it.

The man plagiarized Wallace. Wallace had already
worked everything out BEFORE Darwin sat down to
write anything.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182360025033

Cloud Hobbit

2019-01-28 20:56:57 UTC

Post by JTEM
The man plagiarized Wallace. Wallace had already

worked everything out BEFORE Darwin sat down to
write anything.

Citation?

Provide one, set a precedent.

JTEM

2019-02-07 04:08:02 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Citation?

This isn't school, I'm not here to do your homework
for you and if you don't know the facts then why are
you even in this thread?

Honestly. Shut the fuck up.

It's not hard. You're ignorant and lack enough interest
in the topic to educate yourself, so just shut the fuck
up. Go dwell on topics that do interest you, that you're
not ignorant on.

You may fool some retard with your trolling here but
what kind of reward is that?

"Oo! I'm admired for my knowledge by retarded people!"

I mean, if that's all you've got, if that's the only
thing from putting the barrel of a gun in your mouth
and squeezing one off, good for you. Keep it up. If not,
just shut the fuck up.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182621046668

Cloud Hobbit

2019-02-07 08:00:09 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Citation?

This isn't school, I'm not here to do your homework

for you and if you don't know the facts then why are
you even in this thread?

I just wanted to mention that in searching for anybody who agreed with you about Darwin and found nothing.

So, I was hoping you might provide a link or 3 to that sort of opinion and how it was arrived at by the various critics.

Christopher A. Lee

2019-01-28 04:04:16 UTC

Was that meant to make any sense?

Post by Davej
If Charles Darwin didn't exactly discover evolution, because
it was a concept that had been floating around since the
ancient Greek philosophers, and you feel he didn't describe
it accurately enough, then who did? Most people feel that
Darwin did a better job of lining up supporting evidence and
expressing a coherent overview than anyone else had previously.

Exactly. His was the first scientifically derived explanation. The
previous ones were plucked out of thin air.

Although Lamarck actually had some slight justification for inherited
acquired characteristics, he was way off the mark with his version of
common ancestry.

But he got his acquired characteristics from things like the big,
strong village blacksmith raising big-strong kids - but this was from
a better diet and heavy work, he didn't actually research it.

Darwin couldn't explain his painstaking observations using the
Lamarckian paradigm, so he had to come up with an explanation which
fitted them.

Natural selection was one of those "Eureka" moments.

What is it with this raving loonie's in-your-face obsession with
trying to discredit one of the scientific greats, who didn't just lay
down the foundation of the biological sciences but also made major
contributions to the scientific method itself, ie the verification or
refutation of predictions?

JTEM

2019-02-07 04:09:32 UTC

Was that meant to make any sense?

Exactly. The prosecution rests.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182621046668

John Locke

2019-01-19 18:52:14 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
"Darwin's Doubt": The book that no scientist can refute.

...bullshit. Here's a good debunking by a real scientist:
STEPHEN MEYERS FUMBLING BUMBLING AMATEUR CAMBRIAN FOLLIES
https://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-amateur-cambrian-follies/

"Another common tactic of creationists is credential mongering. They
love to flaunt their Ph.D.s on their book covers, giving the
uninitiated the impression that they are all-purpose experts in every
topic. As anyone who has earned a Ph.D. knows, the opposite is true:
the doctoral degree forces you to focus on one narrow research problem
for a long time, so you tend to lose your breadth of training in other
sciences. Nevertheless, they flaunt their doctorates in hydrology or
biochemistry, then talk about paleontology or geochronology, subjects
they have zero qualification to discuss. Their Ph.D. is only relevant
in the field where they have specialized training. Its comparable to
asking a Ph.D. to fix your car or write a symphonythey may be smart,
but they dont have the appropriate specialized training to do a
competent job based on their Ph.D. alone.

Stephen Meyers first demonstration of these biases was his
atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne),
which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an
amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research
experience in molecular biology. (Meyers Ph.D. is in history of
science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him
absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted
by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has
no research experience or advanced training: my own profession,
paleontology. I can now report that hes just as incompetent in my
field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book
is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result
from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the
creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their
meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the
entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology
classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their expert
in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that
knows no science at all with his slick but completely false
understanding of the subject."

...and another good debunking by a real scientist:
Meyer's Hopeless Monster - Nick Matzke
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html

"Meyer doesn't understand phylogenetics nor modern phylogenetic
taxonomy, nor their relationship to older taxonomy of the Cambrian
phyla."

Post by b***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/pZyRgYZe6tM

Marvin Sebourn

2019-01-19 19:28:40 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
"Darwin's Doubt": The book that no scientist can refute.

STEPHEN MEYER’S FUMBLING BUMBLING AMATEUR CAMBRIAN FOLLIES
https://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-amateur-cambrian-follies/
"Another common tactic of creationists is credential mongering. They
love to flaunt their Ph.D.’s on their book covers, giving the
uninitiated the impression that they are all-purpose experts in every
the doctoral degree forces you to focus on one narrow research problem
for a long time, so you tend to lose your breadth of training in other
sciences. Nevertheless, they flaunt their doctorates in hydrology or
biochemistry, then talk about paleontology or geochronology, subjects
they have zero qualification to discuss. Their Ph.D. is only relevant
in the field where they have specialized training. It’s comparable to
asking a Ph.D. to fix your car or write a symphony—they may be smart,
but they don’t have the appropriate specialized training to do a
competent job based on their Ph.D. alone.
Stephen Meyer’s first demonstration of these biases was his
atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne),
which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an
amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research
experience in molecular biology. (Meyer’s Ph.D. is in history of
science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him
absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution). Undaunted
by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has
no research experience or advanced training: my own profession,
paleontology. I can now report that he’s just as incompetent in my
field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book
is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result
from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the
creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their
meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the
entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology
classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their “expert”
in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that
knows no science at all with his slick but completely false
understanding of the subject."
Meyer's Hopeless Monster - Nick Matzke
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html
"Meyer doesn't understand phylogenetics nor modern phylogenetic
taxonomy, nor their relationship to older taxonomy of the Cambrian
phyla."

Post by b***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/pZyRgYZe6tM

One technique sometimes adopted by Creationists, ID's, anti-elitists, and others, when traipsing into a field they obviously know nothing (or very little) about, and wanting to make an credible decision, is to say that their lack of knowledge and training in this area affords them a unique position-they are qualified to make accurate conclusions because they are not biased by pre-exposure to the facts and propaganda of the established, so-called experts in the field. "Damn experts".

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

JTEM

2019-02-07 04:12:12 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
One technique sometimes adopted by Creationists, ID's, anti-elitists, and others, when traipsing into a field they obviously know nothing (or very little) about, and wanting to make an credible decision, is to say that their lack of knowledge and training in this area affords them a unique position-they are qualified to make accurate conclusions because they are not biased by pre-exposure to the facts and propaganda of the established, so-called experts in the field. "Damn experts".

Never mind that you're saying this in defense of Darwin,
his one theory being Pangenesis...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182621046668

Davej

2019-01-19 19:26:32 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
"Darwin's Doubt": The book that no scientist can refute.

Refute what? What is the relevance of Charles Darwin? We now
know that evolution occurs. And still no Jesus in the sky.

Christopher A. Lee

2019-01-19 19:44:22 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
"Darwin's Doubt": The book that no scientist can refute.

Refute what? What is the relevance of Charles Darwin? We now
know that evolution occurs. And still no Jesus in the sky.

The morons imagine that Darwin was some kind of prophet, whose
utterances are cast in unchanging tablets of stone.

JTEM

2019-01-19 22:13:35 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
The morons imagine that Darwin was some kind of prophet

Yes you do. You believe in this magical Darwin who
was intelligent, scientific and inventor of evolution.

...or do you believe that he discovered it?

Whatever. It's all a fantasy. The man was the antithesis
of science, setting back biology by a matter of decades.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182070284348

C***@deathtochristianity.pl

2019-01-19 20:52:21 UTC

that would be bob duncan

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

v***@gmail.com

2019-01-22 03:30:17 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
"Darwin's Doubt": The book that no scientist can refute.
http://youtu.be/pZyRgYZe6tM

It is not Darwin who has failed. It is the incompetent assholes who cannot
persuade people of his theory with clarity and common sense and so they resort to insults in an attempt to intimidate people

JTEM

2019-01-22 19:28:28 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
It is not Darwin who has failed. It is the incompetent assholes who cannot
persuade people of his theory

Darwin's theory is called "Pangenesis." Like most of
"His" ideas he plagiarized it, and when I say "Most"
I mean "Pretty much all."

NOBODY in their right mind would ever explain or
defend Darwin's theory. They man was an imbecile.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182222262780

a322x1n

2019-01-22 21:34:29 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
It is not Darwin who has failed. It is the incompetent assholes who
cannot persuade people of his theory.

Darwin's theory is called "Pangenesis." Like most of
"His" ideas he plagiarized it, and when I say "Most"
I mean "Pretty much all."
NOBODY in their right mind would ever explain or
defend Darwin's theory. They man was an imbecile.
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182222262780

This sums it all up:

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

<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>

Darwin equals pure truth, creationism and intelligent design equals
pure nonsense. What more can be said?

JTEM

2019-01-22 23:31:15 UTC

The collective dons another sock puppet and
reacts to an imaginary conversation...

Post by JTEM
Darwin's theory is called "Pangenesis." Like most of
"His" ideas he plagiarized it, and when I say "Most"
I mean "Pretty much all."
NOBODY in their right mind would ever explain or
defend Darwin's theory. They man was an imbecile.

Other than establishing your already well documented
mental problems, it really doesn't add anything to
the thread.

Say, what is it you think is wrong or at least under
dispute, in the above?

You could start, speaking rhetorically.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/182224036583

v***@gmail.com

2019-01-23 10:49:39 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
It is not Darwin who has failed. It is the incompetent assholes who cannot
persuade people of his theory

Darwin's theory is called "Pangenesis." Like most of
"His" ideas he plagiarized it, and when I say "Most"
I mean "Pretty much all."
NOBODY in their right mind would ever explain or
defend Darwin's theory. They man was an imbecile.

I posted an article a while back which documents the fact that the idea of
species evolving did not originate with Charles Darwin, but, rather had been discussed for many years by others before 1859 when "Origin of Species" was published.

JTEM

2019-01-27 20:30:56 UTC