07-27-2011, 02:53 PM
|
#91
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
|
Quote:
Pahu wrote
[Load of insanely stupid babble.]
|
If evolution didn't happen, why would god make you so stupid? It seems to me that it would be in gods best interest to have followers who could actually defend their faith than to have mindless bellenders copy and pasting tired old illogical arguments.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
|
|
|
07-27-2011, 02:54 PM
|
#92
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
I suggest this thread becomes this fucking IDiot's playpen.
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
07-27-2011, 03:09 PM
|
#93
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
I suggest this thread becomes this fucking IDiot's playpen.
|
It needs banning Smelly.
Even everything Irreligious replied to in good faith was regurgitated intact from elsewhere, & not for the first time. Why should members be innocently conned into responding to random remote creationits channelled through poopoo?
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
07-27-2011, 03:18 PM
|
#94
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Knowing how banning is frowned upon, even for this type of dolt - we could always close this thread and delete cut 'n pasta'd crap he may post elsewhere.
We can be so reasonable sometimes!
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
07-27-2011, 11:48 PM
|
#95
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
|
Quote:
dogpet wrote
It needs banning Smelly.
Even everything Irreligious replied to in good faith was regurgitated intact from elsewhere, & not for the first time. Why should members be innocently conned into responding to random remote creationits channelled through poopoo?
|
Hey!
No throwing away the toys on Christmas Day, man!
The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
|
|
|
07-27-2011, 11:56 PM
|
#96
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
|
Quote:
Pahu wrote
cut and paste of dipsy doodles
|
Pahu, who were you trying to impress on this forum? Most of us are educated, and pretty much all of us can read. Pseudo science will not impress anybody here. Please give it a rest. For the love of the leprechauns!
Since you are sooooo knowledgeable in the ways of science... ... ....please enlighten us about our primitive ancestors. Let's start with Neanderthals. When did Neanderthals live, and did they have souls? And how about Homo erectus? When did they live, and did they have souls?
The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
|
|
|
07-28-2011, 12:44 AM
|
#97
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
08-02-2011, 12:15 PM
|
#98
|
Guest
|
Natural Selection 1
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection (a).
a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]
Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.
Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).
Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See pages 106-323]
“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.
Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]
[ From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
|
|
|
08-02-2011, 12:27 PM
|
#99
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
|
So, is it your contention, Pahu, that all scientific inquiries into evolution ceased after the publication of Charles Darwin's seminal book "On the Origin of the Species" 152 years ago and that Darwin's was the final word on the topic?
What difference does it make that the concept was plagarized if the theory holds up under scientific scrutiny?
Are you really that distrustful of scientists and the scientific method? What other scientific discoveries and their byproducts do you shun?
It's certainly not the Internet, I see.
"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
|
|
|
08-02-2011, 12:28 PM
|
#100
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
|
Quote:
Pahu wrote
[Spam]
|
Take your spam and fuck off you prick pimple.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
|
|
|
08-02-2011, 01:58 PM
|
#101
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
|
Quote:
Pahu wrote
Natural Selection 1
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection (a).
a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]
Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.
Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).
Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See pages 106-323]
“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.
Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]
[ From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
|
So Darwin, sailing round the world to gather evidence for his hypothesis, simply could have stayed at home and nicked the lot from some knob jockies?
|
|
|
08-02-2011, 02:05 PM
|
#102
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Hydroplates, I'm still waiting for Brown's hydroplates - they're just impossible to refute.
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
08-02-2011, 02:49 PM
|
#103
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
So, is it your contention, Pahu, that all scientific inquiries into evolution ceased after the publication of Charles Darwin's seminal book "On the Origin of the Species" 152 years ago and that Darwin's was the final word on the topic?
|
Not at all.
Quote:
What difference does it make that the concept was plagarized if the theory holds up under scientific scrutiny?
|
I agree that it wouldn't make any difference. Do you believe the hypothesis has held up under scientific scrutiny?
Quote:
Are you really that distrustful of scientists and the scientific method? What other scientific discoveries and their byproducts do you shun?
It's certainly not the Internet, I see.
|
Why do you believe I distrust science and shun its achievements? The information I am sharing, scientifically disproving evolution, is confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Those scientists confirm the conclusions based on known laws of biology and physics and are quoted in my source.
|
|
|
08-02-2011, 03:08 PM
|
#104
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Out of boredom, with the English cricket team in the background, I googled the first three scientists in poohoo's copied list.
Tremaine, Stevenson & Ward - an astrophysycist & two planetary specialists. I'd enjoy hearing, (but not much) exactly how they are qualified to contribute to the scientific disproving of biological evolution.
Or is our passing dickwad continuing to copy bullshit with no thoughts of his own to contribute?
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
08-02-2011, 03:15 PM
|
#105
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
|
Quote:
Pahu wrote
Not at all.
I agree that it wouldn't make any difference. Do you believe the hypothesis has held up under scientific scrutiny?
Why do you believe I distrust science and shun its achievements? The information I am sharing, scientifically disproving evolution, is confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Those scientists confirm the conclusions based on known laws of biology and physics and are quoted in my source.
|
Hahahaha! You dizzy IDiot!
Do the people in this list believe that theory of evolution is in question? How about these publications? Do they suggest that evolution is not a fact?
What a lunatic you are, Jesus eater!
The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 PM.
|