Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.evolution > #604 > unrolled thread

Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin?

Back to article view | Back to alt.evolution

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin? "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-15 14:54 -0500
    Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin? Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-10-15 16:30 -0500
      Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin? "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-15 18:55 -0500
        Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-10-15 19:21 -0500
      Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-10-15 19:20 -0500
      Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-10-16 01:07 -0700
      Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-10-16 17:41 +0000
        Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-10-16 12:51 -0500

#604 — Re: Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin?

"Andrew" <andrew.86remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:MN2dnSrVw-FU95_FnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@earthlink.com: 

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsA6A27B185400Bnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131... 
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> <bilgat@m.nu> wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>><bilgat@m.nu> wrote:
>>>>>> until you can do some actual research instead of watching
>>>>>> religous nutjobs on youtube, you will never make any sense at all
>>>>>
>>>>>Except the research all supports the Creation model of origins.
>>>>
>>>> dude do you even know what you are talking about?
>>>> No research has EVER supported creation, except the research that
>>>> was "invented" by the theists, but it wasnt actually research
>>>> because all they did were read parts of the bible which is a fairy
>>>> tale anyway. So if you feel that there is actual evidence then
>>>> please present it and all sources where you got your material from
>>>
>>> DNA  - inexplicable apart from the Creation model.
>>
>>    There is nothing inexplicable about it.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication
> 
> This talks about the origin of its replication, not of
> the molecule itself. 
You want more???  Have at it:  

 <https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-to-
creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/> 
 
       <http://tinyurl.com/zascach>      
       
  <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>  
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>      
        
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>  
   
         <http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>      
       
   <https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/> 
   
         <http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>      
       
  <https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate> 
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>      
        
  <http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/> 
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>      
        
  <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0> 
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>      
        
  <http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy> 
       
       <http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>      
       
   <https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked> 
   
         <http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>      
         
    <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>  
    
          <http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>      
          
   <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review> 
   
         <http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>      
         
  <http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/> 
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>      
        
  <http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16> 
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>      
        
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin> 
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>      
        
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel> 
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>      
                
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution> 
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>      
        
 <http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/> 
 
       <http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>      
       
  <http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html> 
  
        <http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>      
        
       "Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
 simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
 false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
 What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
 commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
 a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
 granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
 calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
 enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould. 
 
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould> 
     
        <http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>      
        
   <http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution> 
   
         <http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>      
         
    <http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys> 
    
          <http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>      
          
     <http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home> 
     
           <http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>      
           
      <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMk> 
      
           <http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>
           
      <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>
      
            <http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#607

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Andrew" <andrew.86remov@usa.net> wrote in
>news:MN2dnSrVw-FU95_FnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@earthlink.com: 
>
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>> news:XnsA6A27B185400Bnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131... 
<snip>     
>        
>       "Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
> simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
> false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
> What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
> commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
> a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
> granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
> calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
> enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould. 
> 
I'm not trying to prove anything or stir up a debate but I would like
to understand how atheists and agnostics manage to accept the idea
that the multiverse just popped into existence with no form of
intelligence involved. 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610

Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> wrote in 
news:5i750cdo568tun5jljll9d7lov1qs1ac37@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
> Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>"Andrew" <andrew.86remov@usa.net> wrote in
>>news:MN2dnSrVw-FU95_FnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@earthlink.com: 
>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA6A27B185400Bnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131... 
> <snip>     
>>        
>>       "Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
>> simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
>> false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
>> What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
>> commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
>> a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
>> granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
>> calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
>> enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould. 
>> 
> I'm not trying to prove anything or stir up a debate but I would like
> to understand how atheists and agnostics manage to accept the idea
> that the multiverse just popped into existence with no form of
> intelligence involved. 
It's called, "Science, physics, mathamatics, reasearch".
> 
> And, while on this topic, how do these people regard the idea that
> this cosmic intelligence might exist as in a structure such as quantum
> entangled sub-atomic particles that function somewhat like the
> synapses of our brain? Such an array of quantum entangled particles
> could communicate across the entire multiverse, instantly, and could
> have a very precise control of all that is going on, or ever has
> happened.   Gordon
That's called, "A con game".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#613

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:55:05 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> wrote in 
>news:5i750cdo568tun5jljll9d7lov1qs1ac37@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
>> Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>"Andrew" <andrew.86remov@usa.net> wrote in
>>>news:MN2dnSrVw-FU95_FnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@earthlink.com: 
>>>
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>>>> news:XnsA6A27B185400Bnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131... 
>> <snip>     
>>>        
>>>       "Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
>>> simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
>>> false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
>>> What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
>>> commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
>>> a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
>>> granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
>>> calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
>>> enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould. 
>>> 
>> I'm not trying to prove anything or stir up a debate but I would like
>> to understand how atheists and agnostics manage to accept the idea
>> that the multiverse just popped into existence with no form of
>> intelligence involved. 
>It's called, "Science, physics, mathamatics, reasearch".
>> 
>> And, while on this topic, how do these people regard the idea that
>> this cosmic intelligence might exist as in a structure such as quantum
>> entangled sub-atomic particles that function somewhat like the
>> synapses of our brain? Such an array of quantum entangled particles
>> could communicate across the entire multiverse, instantly, and could
>> have a very precise control of all that is going on, or ever has
>> happened.   Gordon
>That's called, "A con game".

He's just being deliberately stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:30:30 -0500, Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
>Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"Andrew" <andrew.86remov@usa.net> wrote in
>>news:MN2dnSrVw-FU95_FnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@earthlink.com: 
>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA6A27B185400Bnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131... 
><snip>     
>>        
>>       "Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
>> simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
>> false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
>> What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
>> commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
>> a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
>> granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
>> calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
>> enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould. 
>> 
>I'm not trying to prove anything or stir up a debate but I would like
>to understand how atheists and agnostics manage to accept the idea
>that the multiverse just popped into existence with no form of
>intelligence involved. 

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

What's wrong with you?

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

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

But then you already know  this.

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

Idiot.

>Gordon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617

In article <5i750cdo568tun5jljll9d7lov1qs1ac37@4ax.com>,
 Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
> Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >"Andrew" <andrew.86remov@usa.net> wrote in
> >news:MN2dnSrVw-FU95_FnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@earthlink.com: 
> >
> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> >> news:XnsA6A27B185400Bnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131... 
> <snip>     
> >        
> >       "Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
> > simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
> > false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
> > What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
> > commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
> > a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
> > granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
> > calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
> > enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould. 
> > 
> I'm not trying to prove anything or stir up a debate but I would like
> to understand how atheists and agnostics manage to accept the idea
> that the multiverse just popped into existence with no form of
> intelligence involved. 

Simple. We're neither stupid nor insane.

-- 

JD

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#627

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:30:30 -0500, Gordon wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
> Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>"Andrew" <andrew.86remov@usa.net> wrote in
>>news:MN2dnSrVw-FU95_FnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA6A27B185400Bnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131...
> <snip>
>>        
>>       "Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
>> simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
>> false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
>> What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
>> commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
>> a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
>> granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
>> calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
>> enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.
>> 
> I'm not trying to prove anything or stir up a debate but I would like to
> understand how atheists and agnostics manage to accept the idea that the
> multiverse just popped into existence with no form of intelligence
> involved.

What multiverse, liar?

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#628

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:41:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:30:30 -0500, Gordon wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:54:48 -0500, "W.T.S., grU-The Lamp of Golden
>> Truth!*" <m14m@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>"Andrew" <andrew.86remov@usa.net> wrote in
>>>news:MN2dnSrVw-FU95_FnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>>>> news:XnsA6A27B185400Bnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131...
>> <snip>
>>>        
>>>       "Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
>>> simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
>>> false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
>>> What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
>>> commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
>>> a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
>>> granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
>>> calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
>>> enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.
>>> 
>> I'm not trying to prove anything or stir up a debate but I would like to
>> understand how atheists and agnostics manage to accept the idea that the
>> multiverse just popped into existence with no form of intelligence
>> involved.
>
>What multiverse, liar?

The proven serial liar knows perfectly well that the multiverse is a
speculation by astrophysicists and cosmologists, and nothing to do
with either atheism or agnosticism.

I oldie to know why he keeps posting these unsolicited lies to
atheists.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.evolution

csiph-web