On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Well, carbon dating depends on a logarithmic scale, and the farther back in >> time you go, the greater the errors. THere is nothing to compare the results >> to to be sure. Maybe you can carbin date something back a few thousand years >> to be sure, but not further back.
If you know about science, if you understand the very basics of
science, the scientific method, then the underlying problem I
laid out was a bias: A sample/selection/preservation bias! AND
THEN there's the circular reasoning where everything is interpreted
within the context of their pre existing conclusion.
FIRST comes the conclusion AND THEN comes the evidence which
miraculously becomes interpreted within the context of the
conclusion...
On 8/29/25 11:55 AM, Attila wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:56:32 -0400, JTEM <[email protected]>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108oni1$13oqk$[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Well, carbon dating depends on a logarithmic scale, and the farther
back in time you go, the greater the errors. THere is nothing to
compare the results to to be sure. Maybe you can carbin date
something back a few thousand years to be sure, but not further
back.
If you know about science, if you understand the very basics of
science, the scientific method, then the underlying problem I
laid out was a bias: A sample/selection/preservation bias! AND
THEN there's the circular reasoning where everything is interpreted
within the context of their pre existing conclusion.
FIRST comes the conclusion AND THEN comes the evidence which
miraculously becomes interpreted within the context of the
conclusion...
That is totally wrong but you will never admit this.
Admit... what? That they dig were it's convenient to dig, where they
believe they can find fossils?
Of course they do.
All fossil hunters do this. But in the example of dinosaurs it's not
as critical as it is with HUMAN evolution, because the dinosaur
hunters are finding dinosaurs! The idiots faking it and calling it
science usually have no way what so ever to tell WHAT is a human
ancestor and what isn't, but they pretend that they can and do....
You can redeem yourself, somewhat, by identifying precisely what
you're pretending is wrong, and explaining WHY.
On 8/29/25 11:55 AM, Attila wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:56:32 -0400, JTEM <[email protected]>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108oni1$13oqk$[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Well, carbon dating depends on a logarithmic scale, and the farther back in
time you go, the greater the errors. THere is nothing to compare the results
to to be sure. Maybe you can carbin date something back a few thousand years
to be sure, but not further back.
If you know about science, if you understand the very basics of
science, the scientific method, then the underlying problem I
laid out was a bias: A sample/selection/preservation bias! AND
THEN there's the circular reasoning where everything is interpreted
within the context of their pre existing conclusion.
FIRST comes the conclusion AND THEN comes the evidence which
miraculously becomes interpreted within the context of the
conclusion...
That is totally wrong but you will never admit this.
Admit... what? That they dig were it's convenient to dig, where they
believe they can find fossils?
Of course they do.
All fossil hunters do this. But in the example of dinosaurs it's not
as critical as it is with HUMAN evolution, because the dinosaur hunters
are finding dinosaurs! The idiots faking it and calling it science
usually have no way what so ever to tell WHAT is a human ancestor and
what isn't, but they pretend that they can and do....
You can redeem yourself, somewhat, by identifying precisely what you're >pretending is wrong, and explaining WHY.
I'm asking too much, I know.
On 8/29/25 9:48 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
You can redeem YOURSELF by posting your
proven alternative to evolution.
Wait. You actually don't know that there's a difference between
evolution and Darwin?
JTEM <[email protected]> wrote in news:108t7p9$28t4m$[email protected]:
On 8/29/25 11:55 AM, Attila wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:56:32 -0400, JTEM <[email protected]>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108oni1$13oqk$[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Well, carbon dating depends on a logarithmic scale, and the farther
back in time you go, the greater the errors. THere is nothing to
compare the results to to be sure. Maybe you can carbin date
something back a few thousand years to be sure, but not further
back.
If you know about science, if you understand the very basics of
science, the scientific method, then the underlying problem I
laid out was a bias: A sample/selection/preservation bias! AND
THEN there's the circular reasoning where everything is interpreted
within the context of their pre existing conclusion.
FIRST comes the conclusion AND THEN comes the evidence which
miraculously becomes interpreted within the context of the
conclusion...
That is totally wrong but you will never admit this.
Admit... what? That they dig were it's convenient to dig, where they
believe they can find fossils?
Of course they do.
All fossil hunters do this. But in the example of dinosaurs it's not
as critical as it is with HUMAN evolution, because the dinosaur
hunters are finding dinosaurs! The idiots faking it and calling it
science usually have no way what so ever to tell WHAT is a human
ancestor and what isn't, but they pretend that they can and do....
You can redeem yourself, somewhat, by identifying precisely what
you're pretending is wrong, and explaining WHY.
You can redeem YOURSELF by posting your
proven alternative to evolution.
On 8/30/25 9:47 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
If Darwin is wrong then what do you believe is right?
So you're claiming
that Darwin is right about the Gemmules. That, if
you build up a muscle and parent a child then that child will be
born with the same muscle built up, having inherited the trait from
you.
Wow. That's stupid. That's incredibly stupid.
There are a number of skeletons that outline the evolution
of those distant ancestors to modern man and new specimens
on this path are frequently found.
On 8/30/2025 9:28 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/30/25 9:47 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
If Darwin is wrong
So you're claiming that Darwin is right about the Gemmules. That, if
you build up a muscle and parent a child then that child will be
born with the same muscle built up, having inherited the trait from
you.
Wow. That's stupid. That's incredibly stupid.
Oh, yeah, here we go again!
Another question, "Why has Darwin's Origin of Species never gone out of
print since it was published in 1859?"
Dawn
On 8/30/25 2:03 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
I am not claiming anything,
In that case you need to STOP being a pussy and take a position!
Right now you're just a coward that wants to oppose without
actually taking any responsibility for the things said...
Borrow a pair, then get back to me.
In the mean time: Darwin is a fraud and you're a liar. You
grew up with the Darwin gospels, you're a devout believer and
you don't want to let go.
"Attila" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
There are a number of skeletons that outline the evolution
of those distant ancestors to modern man and new specimens
on this path are frequently found.
You believe the interpretive (unscientific) story they
tell you about them because --> you are gullible and
thus easily deceived.
There is no mechanism for us to have evolved from
some lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized
evolutionary pathway.
Here an evolutionary biologist (and paleontologist)
tells you in his own words.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific
"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange
fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of
what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth;
we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."
"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices....
Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no
knowable connection to any other given fossil, and
all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"
"Andrew" wrote in news:NkNsQ.31561$[email protected]:
"Attila" wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>
There are a number of skeletons that outline the evolution
of those distant ancestors to modern man and new specimens
on this path are frequently found.
You believe the interpretive (unscientific) story they
tell you about them because --> you are gullible and
thus easily deceived.
There is no mechanism for us to have evolved from
some lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized
evolutionary pathway.
Here an evolutionary biologist (and paleontologist)
tells you in his own words.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific
"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange
fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of
what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth;
we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."
"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices....
Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no
knowable connection to any other given fossil, and
all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"
Darwinism is dynamic. It is about change,
not stasis; about process, not pattern;
about tales, not tableaux; about becoming,
not being.
- Henry Gee -
https://www.azquotes.com/author/84252-Henry_Gee#google_vignette
"Attila" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
There are a number of skeletons that outline the evolution
of those distant ancestors to modern man and new specimens
on this path are frequently found.
You believe the interpretive (unscientific) story they
tell you about them because --> you are gullible and
thus easily deceived.
There is no mechanism for us to have evolved from
some lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized
evolutionary pathway.
Here an evolutionary biologist (and paleontologist)
tells you in his own words.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific
"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange
fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of
what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth;
we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."
"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices....
Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no
knowable connection to any other given fossil, and
all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"
On 8/30/25 9:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
What you deleted
Darwin was wrong.
Whatever YOU mistakenly believe he
was saying in his Origins, he spelled out what he
meant by "Natural Selection" and it was what the
people who later BANNED evolution believed. Exactly.
Darwin was in agreement with those who OUTLAWED
evolution. We know this because Darwin made it clear,
he spelled it out with his pangenesis, and he did so
AFTER Origins.
Dawn Flood <[email protected]> wrote in news:108vvtf$2tas8$1@dont- >email.me:
On 8/30/2025 9:28 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/30/25 9:47 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
If Darwin is wrong
So you're claiming that Darwin is right about the Gemmules. That, if
you build up a muscle and parent a child then that child will be
born with the same muscle built up, having inherited the trait from
you.
Wow. That's stupid. That's incredibly stupid.
Oh, yeah, here we go again!
Another question, "Why has Darwin's Origin of Species never gone out of
print since it was published in 1859?"
Dawn
As we have seen "JTEM" doesn't
answer questions, he deletes them
entirely and then asks his own.
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"Andrew" wrote in news:NkNsQ.31561$[email protected]:
"Attila" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
There are a number of skeletons that outline the evolution
of those distant ancestors to modern man and new specimens
on this path are frequently found.
You believe the interpretive (unscientific) story they
tell you about them because --> you are gullible and
thus easily deceived.
There is no mechanism for us to have evolved from
some lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized
evolutionary pathway.
Here an evolutionary biologist (and paleontologist)
tells you in his own words.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific
"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange
fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of
what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth;
we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."
"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices....
Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no
knowable connection to any other given fossil, and
all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"
Darwinism is dynamic. It is about change,
not stasis; about process, not pattern;
about tales, not tableaux; about becoming,
not being.
- Henry Gee -
https://www.azquotes.com/author/84252-Henry_Gee#google_vignette
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story-"
~ HG
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:[email protected]... >> "Andrew" wrote in news:NkNsQ.31561$[email protected]:
"Attila" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
There are a number of skeletons that outline the evolution
of those distant ancestors to modern man and new specimens
on this path are frequently found.
You believe the interpretive (unscientific) story they
tell you about them because --> you are gullible and
thus easily deceived.
There is no mechanism for us to have evolved from
some lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized
evolutionary pathway.
Here an evolutionary biologist (and paleontologist)
tells you in his own words.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific
"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange
fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of
what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth;
we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."
"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices....
Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no
knowable connection to any other given fossil, and
all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"
Darwinism is dynamic. It is about change,
not stasis; about process, not pattern;
about tales, not tableaux; about becoming,
not being.
- Henry Gee -
https://www.azquotes.com/author/84252-Henry_Gee#google_vignette
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story-"
~ HG
On 8/30/25 7:02 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:of
Another question, "Why has Darwin's Origin of Species never gone out
print since it was published in 1859?"
What answer is capable of altering reality to such an extant
that Darwin no longer spelled out exactly what he meant by
"Natural selection," and it was a slight variation on
Lamarckism?
Hmm?
I know that fundamentalists latch on to some printed words
and insist upon their interpretation but, you pretend to
not be religious.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
There are a number of skeletons that outline the evolution
of those distant ancestors to modern man and new specimens
on this path are frequently found.
You believe the interpretive (unscientific) story they
tell you about them because --> you are gullible and
thus easily deceived.
There is no mechanism for us to have evolved from
some lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized
evolutionary pathway.
Here an evolutionary biologist (and paleontologist)
tells you in his own words.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not
scientific
"From our vantage point in the present, we arrange
fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of
what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth;
we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices."
"Many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent
lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my
book is intended to debunk this view..old-style, traditional
evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a
story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters
and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting
story. We call these new discoveries "missing links", as
if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object
for our contemplation, and not what it really is: . . . . .
a completely human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices....
Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no
knowable connection to any other given fossil, and
all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
~ Henry Gee, Senior editor, "Nature"
Darwinism is dynamic. It is about change,
not stasis; about process, not pattern;
about tales, not tableaux; about becoming,
not being.
- Henry Gee -
https://www.azquotes.com/author/84252-Henry_Gee#google_vignette
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story-"
~ HG
That's probably, in part, why it's not called a scientific law.
Does pointing out that which is not in dispute gain you anything?
I'm genuinely curious.
--
Kenito Benito
Strategic Writer,
Psychotronic World Dominator.
And FEMA camp counselor.
Evolution is a fact. It has
been observed and documented.
The very existence of drug
resistance in microbes is proof
of their ability to evolve.
Evolution observed
https://tinyurl.com/yjv4w67u
https://tinyurl.com/y68hcy8w
https://tinyurl.com/2u66rnae
https://tinyurl.com/wtzsmh43
https://tinyurl.com/55jmce52
https://tinyurl.com/5c5e3zvm
https://tinyurl.com/3bvdxjtp
JTEM <[email protected]> wrote in news:1090irt$31647$[email protected]:
On 8/30/25 7:02 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:of
Another question, "Why has Darwin's Origin of Species never gone out
print since it was published in 1859?"
What answer is capable of altering reality to such an extant
that Darwin no longer spelled out exactly what he meant by
"Natural selection," and it was a slight variation on
Lamarckism?
Hmm?
I know that fundamentalists latch on to some printed words
and insist upon their interpretation but, you pretend to
not be religious.
It is typical of Creationists
to dwell at length on Darwin instead
of the science he discovered. It is
like virologists were to debate the
life and writings of Edward Jenner
and ignore all the discoveries about
viruses since then.
Evolution is a fact. It has
been observed and documented.
The very existence of drug
resistence in microbes is proof
of their ability to evolve.
Evolution observed
https://tinyurl.com/yjv4w67u
https://tinyurl.com/y68hcy8w
https://tinyurl.com/2u66rnae
https://tinyurl.com/wtzsmh43
https://tinyurl.com/55jmce52
https://tinyurl.com/5c5e3zvm
https://tinyurl.com/3bvdxjtp
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Evolution is a fact. It has
been observed and documented.
Has abiogenesis
been observed
and documented. Then cite, but
you never will.
The very existence of drug
resistance in microbes is proof
of their ability to evolve.
Some bacteria will have a resistance
to the drug; and overuse of the drug
would naturally cause that resistant
bacteria to multiply.
But that has nothing to do with the
"goo to you" paradigm. Therefore
again, you have been deceived!
Evolution observed
https://tinyurl.com/yjv4w67u
https://tinyurl.com/y68hcy8w
https://tinyurl.com/2u66rnae
https://tinyurl.com/wtzsmh43
https://tinyurl.com/55jmce52
https://tinyurl.com/5c5e3zvm
https://tinyurl.com/3bvdxjtp
Natural change and variation has
been programmed into the original
Creation.
This is what you have cited above.
Again, nothing to do with the "goo
to you" paradigm.
Thus again you have revealed your
gullibility and the fact that you are
easily deceived.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a
lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,
but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bed
time story-"
~ HG
That's probably, in part, why it's not called a scientific law.
Yet the *story* is presented...as though it were truth.
When in fact it is, "against the Law".
"The Law of Biogenesis".
Does pointing out that which is not in dispute gain you anything?
I simply point out the 'unscientific foolishness'
and obvious *gullibility* of our atheist friends.
I'm genuinely curious.
I understand.
PRIOR TO DARWIN, THE DOMINANT VIEW AMONG SCHOLARS WAS CREATIONISM!!!
Get it now?! Yes, Darwin got some things wrong! Here's Darwin's BIG contribution:
NATURALISM REPLACED SUPERNATURALISM AS THE EXPLANATION FOR LIFE!
Do you need me to make things clearer for you??
Dawn
On 8/31/25 9:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
It is typical of Creationists
So Darwin rejected evolution, spelled out THE FACT that
he was in total agreement with those who would later
outlaw evolution, but you cling to the falsehood because
you are unable to emotionally cope with the fact that
you've been stupid.
Is that it?
You can't think. You can't evaluate. You need to be
told by a high priest what to believe. And you swapped
out the Queen or Bishop or Pope for what you want to
believe is "Science," and if you accept that you were
a moron and just flipped from one fairy tale to another
then our whole world comes crashing down.
On 8/31/25 9:16 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
JTEM <[email protected]> wrote in news:1090j1f$31647$[email protected]:
Darwin was wrong.
Then what do you believe is right?
That Darwin was wrong,
that your various body parts do not
produce gemmules which accumulate in the gonads, are passed
down to offspring allowing them to be born with traits you
acquired during your life.
I believe that Darwin was wrong for not believing in evolution
and instead agreeing with those who BANNED evolution.
I believe the ultimate answer is to stop being a moron and
just accepting everything you are spoon fed.
"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:10953vq$4igd$[email protected]...
PRIOR TO DARWIN, THE DOMINANT VIEW AMONG SCHOLARS WAS CREATIONISM!!!
Get it now?! Yes, Darwin got some things wrong! Here's Darwin's BIG
contribution:
NATURALISM REPLACED SUPERNATURALISM AS THE EXPLANATION FOR LIFE!
Do you need me to make things clearer for you??
Dawn
Thanks Dawn, but you see, Without a
Creation there would be no naturalism.
Furthermore, conviction often came to him
(Darwin) that he was devoting his life to a
phantasy.
He said that often a "cold shudder" would
run trough his body testifying to that fact.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run
through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may not have devoted my life
to a phantasy."
~Darwin
Andrew wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:Andrew,
PRIOR TO DARWIN, THE DOMINANT VIEW AMONG SCHOLARS WAS CREATIONISM!!!
Get it now?! Yes, Darwin got some things wrong! Here's Darwin's BIG
contribution:
NATURALISM REPLACED SUPERNATURALISM AS THE EXPLANATION FOR LIFE!
Do you need me to make things clearer for you??
Dawn
Thanks Dawn, but you see, Without a Creation there would be no naturalism. >>
Furthermore, conviction often came to him (Darwin) that he was devoting
his life to a phantasy. He said that often a "cold shudder" would run trough >> his body testifying to that fact.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."
~Darwin
Don't start! Okay??
Dawn
P.S. If you want to explore Creationism (again!), then
start another thread in a.a.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
PRIOR TO DARWIN, THE DOMINANT VIEW AMONG SCHOLARS WAS CREATIONISM!!!
Get it now?! Yes, Darwin got some things wrong! Here's Darwin's BIG
contribution:
NATURALISM REPLACED SUPERNATURALISM AS THE EXPLANATION FOR LIFE!
Do you need me to make things clearer for you??
Dawn
Thanks Dawn, but you see, Without a
Creation there would be no naturalism.
Furthermore, conviction often came to him
(Darwin) that he was devoting his life to a
phantasy.
He said that often a "cold shudder" would
run trough his body testifying to that fact.
"Often and often a cold shudder has run
through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may not have devoted my life
to a phantasy."
~Darwin
And now, the rest of the quote:
"I rejoice profoundly that you intend
admitting doctrine of modification in
your new Edition. Nothing, I am convinced,
could be more important for its success.
I honour you most sincerely:-to have
maintained, in the position of a master,
one side of a question for 30 years &
then deliberately give it up, is a fact,
to which I much doubt whether the records
of science offer a parallel. For myself,
also, I rejoice profoundly; for thinking
of the many cases of men pursuing an
illusion for years, often & often a cold
shudder has run through me & I have asked
myself whether I may not have devoted my
life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as
morally impossible that investigators of
truth like you & Hooker can be wholly
wrong; & therefore I feel that I may rest
in peace."
Here we have another instance of a very
telling sentence being omitted from a
quote, Darwin stating that he did not
feel that he had been devoting himself
to a phantasy.
No:
Wiki isn't a cite.
On 9/1/2025 11:32 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 9/1/25 9:44 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
������ The thread is about the current science
of paleo anthropology.
Paleo anthropology isn't a science. Science is a method,
and approach. Paleo anthropology is politics, a social
program at best.
No, it is science, because, it makes predictions.
I have told you this before! Here's a prediction of paleo anthropology:
No hominid fossils in Devonian strata.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:58:35 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,357 |