BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 07:22 PM

Pete.. I see no sense in continuing this when you keep insisting that accepting scientific evidence for evolution is a 'faith position'.

That is a logical error and a misuse of common terminology.

"Faith" and "belief" in their technical sense are not the same as when used simply to mean, as you are doing, 'confidence in one's basic evidence and procedures'.

Faith **MEANS** acceptance of something not testable. Science IS testable, even though the many details are always open to revision. The basic theory is also open to revision, but for 150 years now, all the basic data has led to more & more evidence for evolution.

All we are really doing here is going in circles, and my fingers are tired. So I repeat for the 28th time (but... who's counting?) IF a God made everything, we can at least examine how he did it and come close to the age of it all. The pages of an old manuscript do not explain anything BECAUSE the very authenticity of the manuscript is in doubt.
If I have to choose between radiocarbon dating and a supposed list of 'begats' in Genesis, you can guess my choice.

And by the way... how do YOU explain all that supposed record keeping of names from Adam to Moses, etc.? You cannot just keep demanding that 'evolutionists' defend THEIR data.... where is your defense of biblical stories?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 05:26 PM

>>
Difficult to say what sort of comments are out of place in a discussion about a cartoon. Let's get a ruling on this from Jack;-)
<<

I saw the wink. But I did enjoy your post. I think I agree with your implication that the comments became out of place when the topic switched to other things. Maybe Q and Grishka, have a point. Could we have a semipermanent thread for example to argue the scientific viability of creationism with pete? Would that keep the discussion of that from spreading to other threads?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 05:11 PM

What is MYO bone?

How does it prove that the universe is 6,000 years old?

"there have been claims of possible couple million in very favourable conditions"

I'm not sure what you are saying. But if you accept the possibility that life is anywhere near a million years old then your "young earth" theory of a universe age as calculated by Bishop Ussher is disproved. If you are willing to accept that possibility then we are done, you can apologize for wasting everyone's time and we can start another topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:57 PM

"I have been presenting evidence for a young earth for a long time. various soft tissue in supposedly MYO bone being one such."

Yes, ONLY one such - you've been banging on about that for ages! One APPARENT anomaly doesn't 'prove' anything - happens all the time in science - live with it!

Have you read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:48 PM

I go away for the weekend and come back to lots of challenges.
bill- I am sure that you are not deliberately misrepresenting what I say [not sure about everyone..] so I will try again...
I am not saying that the bible alone proves a young creation, but that the evidence is consistent with it. it is enough for me, but I am happy that creation believing scientists can point to other lines of reasoning. neither do I claim that there are no unsolved problems, though I reckon evolutionism has far greater problems, especially atheists. this is why I say ,it is a faith position....you have to believe impossible things, things contrary to observable, repeatable ,testable science.
you's all deny it is a faith stand, because you have to keep adjusting your story, but your non negotiable position is deep time and naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence.
again you appeal to numbers, and claim that their research supports the general theory of evolution.....but providing no other evidence.
I have said this before, but I can say it 27 more times if need be!....if the great scientists of the past bowed to peer pressure we would still be thinking that life generated spontaneously from rotting garbage.....now where have I heard something like that before....?!

jack- I have been presenting evidence for a young earth for a long time. various soft tissue in supposedly MYO bone being one such.
there have been claims of possible couple million in very favourable conditions, but 60 and more MYO...WELL I SUPPOSE IF THATS YOUR FAITH...
As to teeth designed for tearing flesh, you may recall that ham gave examples of other creatures that had such teeth but were herbivore, mainly.
as to a complete waste of money....there are an awful lot of jobs riding on the unproven GTE !. TAXPAYERS MONEY!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:09 PM

All Messiahs have got big willies. Tsk!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 04:55 AM

Yep. I'm intelligent. Yep. I'm fucking minted. Yep. I've got a big willy. Yep. I can still ski despite rods holding my back in one piece. Yep. I have the privilege to give a retirement to a greyhound who had a hard life in the murky racing world. Yep. I appear to have musical ability. Yep. I drive round flicking Vs at the peasants.

As God is my witness.

zzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 03:30 AM

In 'The Greatest Show on Earth' (which pete refuses to read because he might learn something) Dawkins devotes a chapter to intelligent design vs evolution. He shows that many anatomical structures in mammals, and other phyla, are often based on earlier structures and often involve compromises that a truly 'intelligent designer' wouldn't even contemplate - a truly 'intelligent designer' would have started again!

His examples include (among others) the nerves in a giraffe's neck and the structure (as it happens!) of the human male genitalia.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 01:19 AM

If this were a serious discussion of anything, one would be inclined to carefully examine the points that DMcG brought out:

-In fact, there are very few groups that he (Jesus) criticised: those who seek
knowledge was not one of them.

-You will of course remember that he DID criticise those who were convinced they had all the answers on God's will.


The point might be made that Scripture not only encourages us to seek out knowledge, it advocates peer review:

Proverbs 18: 15 The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.

Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

And another point might be made that there are actually commandments against claiming to have all the answers on God's will.


Of course, this is not a serious discussion, so we will leave those points alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 08:32 PM

Penny S
I usually go for the schistosomiasis in which the male worm is absorbed into the female worm which is then parastic on firstly snails and then us

OH MY GOD! Say it isn't so.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 08:25 PM

Difficult to say what sort of comments are out of place in a discussion about a cartoon. Let's get a ruling on this from Jack;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 06:48 PM

Try asking how, if God is good, parasitical creatures that inject their young into other creatures etc to feed on them works into the equation. If that is intelligent design, it takes a very sick mind to design it.

Not only that, Musket, but God placed the female anus 1.25" from the fanny. AND he organised the nuts to be viable only if carried in an exceptionally vulnerable location without the general body. Either he was totally inept or he was a bloody comedian. Take yer pick.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 06:12 PM

I rather agree with DMcG about the tone of that post. It does feel like a sneer, and is quite out of place. Having been well educated and made a decent living has nothing to do with being right, being moral or one's perceived need for or against spirituality.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 05:57 PM

I'm pretty sure Jesus had an answer to that one, God's Witness. And he didn't sneer while explaining it.

In fact, there are very few groups that he criticised: those who seek
knowledge was not one of them.
You will of course remember that he DID criticise those who were convinced they had all the answers on God's will.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,God's Witness
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:49 PM

Ah, that precious Phd, Musket. It opened the doors to your life of position and privilege. What need have you for anything spiritual when you've got the money to buy escargot and Alpine Ski trips?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:24 PM

pete, one piece of physical evidence that the universe is less than 10,000 years old please.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:22 PM

Ham uses lies about science and scripture to justify his own interpretations and to get donations. Whether it each individual donating a dollar or one donation of the whole thing. $23,000,000 for a "creation museum" represents a lot of stupidity and a lot of waste.

Thanks for the suggestion Musket. Having had a debate or two about religion, I knew it would not be useful. Thanks to Penny for explaining why. Then there is the whole thing about lions (Mr Hams interpretation) in the Garden of Eden. With carnivore teeth and claws sitting around eating shoots and leaves patiently waiting for Adam and Eve to screw up. Its as if God was SETTING THEM UP TO FALL. The story works OK as a parable. But if it is evidence of design, it is evidence that the design work was not very intelligent. Wouldn't intelligent design develop predator and prey in sync with one another?

Prey could nourish the predator in exchange for keeping prey from over breeding and passing on genetic weakness. The prey and predator adapting to one another each species getting stronger, or smarter or faster, until the genome of one have shaped the other. That is a much more elegant system than, "Hang on there Mr lion. Try to much these grape fruit until the flaw that I purposely built into man manifests its self allowing you to "fall from grace" with him and you can eat the ungulates I designed you to eat.

The Zoo where my wife used to work feed the lions a processed food called carnivore loaf. It is not asking a lot for an omnipotent being writing an infallible book meant to be taken as "historical science" today would have at least mentioned feeding the lions something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:21 PM

I recall a distant Aunty who visited once, and left a book on the table for us. (My Dad binned it.). The book was from the Jehova's Witness cult, of which she was a member.

I remember the cover. It had a child sat on the grass cuddling a lion.

Regardless of whether logic falls or the creature called human fell, it is still the case that some creatures, in order to survive, make the life's of other creatures short and painful.

So much for intelligent design...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 04:02 PM

The fall doesn't work, at least as well, for explaining why we have creatures who eat other creatures. The inerrant Ken Ham assures us that lions and tigers were herbivores until sometime after Noah's flood.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 03:45 PM

The fact that Pete is looking to "creation science" to verifiy what the Bible says shows that, though it may not be obvious, he, too, places science above scripture.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Penny S.
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 03:39 PM

Musket, I am sorry to say there is an out on that question - I usually go for the schistosomiasis in which the male worm is absorbed into the female worm which is then parastic on firstly snails and then us - but it is the nasty little business of the Fall. All the nasties are our fault, not God's.

And it's no use arguing that if they could go that way after the bitten fruit, the potential must have been built in before by the creator, because I've never had an answer to that.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 03:02 PM

Luckily, my PhD thesis didn't include carrots or asses. In any case I might have called them mules if I had. It did reference The Principia though. For the benefit of your detractors, I will state that in addressing forces, (my research was in mechanical vibration) I never once had to mention that Newton taught himself Hebrew in order to find the ark of the covenant. Neither was it relevant to point out his general pious approach to life nor indeed his work at The Royal Mint nor his political ambitions.

You see, you can be delusional at a fundamental level and still work out how the universe ticks. Even Einstein had issues with probability.....   Importantly he didn't deny Heisenberg, he merely hoped there would be a more acceptable inference.

Then apologised when he saw how no other explanation of quantum mechanics could suffice.



Jack. Instead of questioning Pete's timeline, which he can wriggle out of.. Try asking how, if God is good, parasitical creatures that inject their young into other creatures etc to feed on them works into the equation. If that is intelligent design, it takes a very sick mind to design it. Not to mention the worms that get into the eyes of children and blinds them......

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 10:31 AM

pete, one piece of physical evidence that the universe is less than 10,000 years old please.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 10:21 AM

Pete: "...this is basically your approach bill, together with inferring that creationists only have the biblical text to support their position, when you know that there are a lot of scientific arguments as well.
we also disagree on whether evolutionism is a doctrine of atheistic faith."

I repeat, Pete... and I may repeat 27 MORE times. Arguments for the Biblical version of events, in so far as they simply seek to justify a **belief** are NOT actual science...(or rather, someone's **interpretation** of one translation of Biblical stories which cannot be verified AS actual events).

How can I put it? If a thousand scientists perform all sort of tests and compare results and agree that the universe is about 14 billion years old and that the earth is about 4 billion years old.... what does it mean for a few guys with science training & backgrounds to look at the same tests, data & evidence and pronounce that:
"these conclusions do not agree with what my preacher and the Creation.com website says is the REAL age of things, so all those measurements must be in error, and we will RE-interpret the results until we get answers that agree with Bishop Ussher and various others who read the Bible and counted the generations since Adam & Eve!"


Pete: I repeat... when they demand that science MUST agree with the Bible, they are simply using the name science. They are not following the rock-bottom, necessary, rules OF the scientific method.

Pete: I repeat again: If you wish to assert that God started it all, I can only shrug. I can't prove otherwise. But if these little brains we have are part of what 'God' gave us, then proper use of them shows us HOW it all proceeded after God gave it all a push! We are still learning the details, but counting generations listed in Genesis is NOT a scientific way of establishing a basic age of the Earth!

(Ummm... I can't even be sure who my great-great-great grandfather was. No one has ever explained who wrote down & kept track of those hundreds of names in Genesis...very few people could even write back then! )

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 07:20 AM

As it happens, my left hand also possesses five digits. (Right hand is slightly defficient but that's another story.) It is self-evident. Show me some evolution, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 07:17 AM

His ego is greater.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Feb 14 - 07:05 AM

Just been looking back a few days -

Steve Shaw
But Newton's alchemy is so outrageous that I refuse to make excuses for him.

The whole post that that sentence finishes off is an amazing piece of work. Steve actually believes he is intellectually superior to Newton.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 09:32 PM

This is really like a bad accident. It is horrible to watch, and impossible to look away.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 08:42 PM

"It is a phenomenon that definitely occurs and only an imbecile would deny it.'

Like snow?

Only an imbecile would say "Snow is true."

Sigh....


What is wrong with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 08:19 PM

Well, I come here after 24 hours away, expecting to see some light (kidding of course, though, Musket, your comment about your carrots and my ass look like Einstein's PhD thesis alongside any of Wacko's or Gastropodus insensibilissimus's crass and sour-faced inanities).

Now here's the thing, you pair of tossers. Evolution happens (only dimwits such as pete with his third-hand received unwisdom would demur). It is a phenomenon that definitely occurs and only an imbecile would deny it. Therefore evolution is true. But, you see, a phenomenon that self-evidently occurs is not science. My left hand self-evidently possesses five digits. It is not science to say that my left hand has five digits. It is not science to say that the bleedin' obvious occurs. The science comes in, not when you observe phenomena that are true, but in the explanation of those phenomena. Evolution is true. The explanation of evolution is one of the grandest theories ever achieved by mankind, but no scientist would say that the explanation of evolution is true. The explanation of evolution, and of any phenomena you care to name, is a quest for truth. Scientists revel in the fact that the quest is never-ending. It's delicious, actually. Now I think I've given our resident pair of half-wits far too much time on this already (I'm that kind of guy: all-giving, innit). So further correspondence on this matter will receive short shrift. I'm fed up of being so bloody polite, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 07:48 PM

"of tosh from a bunch of religious fanatics who have arbitrarily decided to believe every word of a translated, re-translated and mis-translated old book containing the myths and legends of some Bronze Age desert tribesmen! "

That is actually not the case. the creationists and probably pete do not claim to believe every word. The only claim to literally believe the parts of the Bible that suit there circular arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:32 PM

"I,ve got more pressing things to do than read lots of books by[ un]believers claiming they provide such strong evidence for their [changeable] story.....and yet somehow cant seem to express these overwhelming evidences themselves."

Oh come on, pete! You've got loads of time! What a pathetic excuse!

And scientific evidence is often "changeable" as you so crudely put it. It's a slowly building picture. That's the nature of scientific discovery. What it is NOT about is absolute, all-or-nothing belief or faith. You've been told that lots of times but you still choose wilful ignorance.

"what keeps happening, is Darwinist posters saying its true , because [evolutionary] scientists say it is. and its true because those scientists say there is strong evidence for it."

But, pete, most of us are not scientists studying evolutionary biology - so we have to rely on the words of practising evolutionary biologists. The evidence that they present is 100 million times more convincing than a load of tosh from a bunch of religious fanatics who have arbitrarily decided to believe every word of a translated, re-translated and mis-translated old book containing the myths and legends of some Bronze Age desert tribesmen! Which, as I pointed out above, is supposed to be the word of God - because it's described as such within its pages ... circular reasoning anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:26 PM

Steve says a lot of illogical things about science which tend to give pete hope for winning these debates.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 05:11 PM

Science is, by definition, not a faith. It makes some people feel more secure if they call it that, because they don't think their beliefs can't co-exist with logic science.

While I have no wish to continue another idiotic argument with the usual combatants, I think "Darwin's Witnesses" would make a hell of a band name!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

"pete,

I think that science may be Mr' Shaw's faith. That is not so for the rest of this.

Mr. Shaw made a flawed clam about evolution. Th snail was pointing that out. We can't see stars form, burn their fuel and die either, as your Ham would say "We weren't there." but we know a lot about the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 03:48 PM

pete,

I think that science may be Mr' Shaw's faith. That is not so for the rest of this.

"creationists only have the biblical text to support their position, when you know that there are a lot of scientific arguments as well."

I all my years of studying science and reading about it as an amateur, I have never seen the phrase scientific arguments until today. Would you please tell me what they are amd maybe provide and example of one.

Arguments they may have, such as "There are problems with your theory", and "we have a 1/100 model in our museum." But there is nothing "scientific" about those arguments. Please, one "scientific argument."

What they do not have is one shred of evidence that any of the major claims about Genesis happened, or how they happen, or of why claim they happened.

How about it. Can you point to one piece of evidence that the universe is less than 10,000 years old?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

well, troubadour, your response to my answer to your challenge, is just what I said it would be....circular reasoning.
and just because this wise bloke is apparently intellectually dishonest, does not mean other creation scientists are.
and if this man does have evidence proving [or even significant evidence] that evolutionism is true lets have it. I,ve got more pressing things to do than read lots of books by[ un]believers claiming they provide such strong evidence for their [changeable] story.....and yet somehow cant seem to express these overwhelming evidences themselves.
what keeps happening, is Darwinist posters saying its true , because [evolutionary] scientists say it is. and its true because those scientists say there is strong evidence for it. and so evolutionists say its true because evolutionists say its true.
this is basically your approach bill, together with inferring that creationists only have the biblical text to support their position, when you know that there are a lot of scientific arguments as well.
we also disagree on whether evolutionism is a doctrine of atheistic faith.
despite it being below snails dignity to speak to me, I cant do better than quote him-
"actually, does evolution happen, show me where I can see it happening?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 12:06 PM

Tell you what Pete.

Google paleontologist Dr Kurt Wise and read his confirmation of much of the scientific evidence for evolution, especially regarding your pet plaint about transitional forms in the fossil record,

Having shot down most of your arguments, he goes on to say that he is a creationist and that the evidence is unimportant because anything which disagrees with the bible is unreal, and scientists are just playing games with amusing but useless theories.

The only reality he recognises is that God made it all that way.

This is the level of inanity which you swallow hook, line and sinker, and will happily pass on to children as truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 11:16 AM

"creation palaeontologists
dr Marcus ross
Nicholas steno
john woodward"

I did say "of any stature", which means generally accepted as such by the scientific community.

I hardly think that their opinions on paleontology will carry much weight among Paleontologists, geologists, astrophysicists etc. etc.

They are the antithesis of scientists, confusing science and mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 09:56 AM

Come on Musket, admit it. The idea of Newton separating "science" from alchemy with a self constructed Berlin wall in his brain is a little bonkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 07:13 AM

All very well Musket, but Steve seems to want us to accept his opinion as incontrovertible fact. Could this be why he left the Roman Catholic church? He realised they weren't going to let him be pope. Still thinks he's infallible though.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:56 AM

I don't have my Collins English Snail Snail English Phrase Book to hand so please excuse me for only saying this in English.

Saying something "is" is far cry from expressing an opinion. If you don't understand, keep your beak / feeding tube whatever shut or ask someone to explain.



Hey Steve! I didn't know you had an ass. I left my carrots in the ground too long this year and some of them have gone a bit woody, so if you want some pony carrots for your ass, just say the word and I'll send them on.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Feb 14 - 06:20 AM

Musket
Quite a few instances on this thread of people saying something is because they say it is.

Steve Shaw
If I proffer an opinion, you wassock, I don't need to give "sources". The source of my opinions is me.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 09:51 PM

So it is your opinion that Newton built a "Berlin Wall" in his head to separate the "good science" from the whimsy?

You lecture pete on the scientific method. You call be names and call what I say "nonsense."

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty. What is you opinion on that?

Do you think Max wrote it?
Do you think you are above the rules.

Tell you what, why don't you knock it off?

If you do, I promise to try to ignore you.

How about it? You can continue to make up your own facts about Newton or whatever. Just stop insisting that other people are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:54 PM

If I proffer an opinion, you wassock, I don't need to give "sources". The source of my opinions is me. You are a very troubled man, Wacko. You mentioned your wife. Excellent. At least I now know you're male. But I should leave her out of it if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:36 PM

It would certainly be a kindness to you if I could convince you to stop pulling "facts" out of your ass.


Would you please cite your sources for your weird speculation about you "Berlin Wall" in Isaac Newton's head? I am assuming that it is your ass. But if I see it anywhere else ANYWHERE else, I will very humbly apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:27 PM

It would be good for you to learn that you can't pull facts out of your arse.

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."

Heheheheheheh!!! Whited sepulchres unite!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:23 PM

Evolution is neither true or untrue.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

Steve and pete, please read this. If you don't understand any part of it. Please ask a question.

Christ on a bike, Wacko, PLEASE don't join in with this. It is way above your sorry little head. I'll be nice enough to give you thirty seconds, then will you bugger off please. Right: "Evolution is neither true or untrue". Vacuous bollocks. It is one or the other. If evolution happens, it is true. If it doesn't, it isn't. Moving on:

"The theory of evolution is a scientific theory." Well bugger me sideways with a bent banana! Knock me over with a feather! No shit, Sherlock! How bloody profound of you! You see, Wacko, what you don't understand here, and why you are so abysmally out of your depth, is that evolution is a phenomenon that absolutely, definitely, nem con, takes place. It is true. The THEORY of evolution (your words, not mine, but hey ho) is the explanation for the phenomenon of evolution. The explanation is predicated on evidence. In the case of evolution, the evidence is massive, comprehensive and ultra-convincing. But what is the truth here is that evolution occurs. The explanation is very good so far but, as with all scientific theories, it has a long way to go and will almost certainly never get all the way there. But that does not alter by one jot or tittle the fact that evolution occurs. It is true. It just needs explaining, by science, that's all. Do try, in your tiny little limited sour mind, to elicit the difference between the phenomenon of evolution and the "theory of evolution" (again, your words). It isn't little.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:21 PM

"What, in the name of Christ, is this imbecile talking about? Can anyone tell me? "

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."

You are claiming to be able to read the mind of man who has been dead for 300 years, contradicting his biographers and his own writings and you have the temerity to call me an imbecile? Whatever you say... :-D

Your saying something does not make it so. It would be good for you to learn that you can't pull facts out of your arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 14 - 08:06 PM

You just aren't getting it are you. In 1700, alchemy wasn't "speculative and whimsical", it was mainstream and conventional.

Oh, I get it all right, pillock. I don't give a damn whether it was "mainstream and conventional" (what the hell has that silly notion got to do with anything!). The point is that is he was, in promoting alchemy and God, being singularly unscientific, and those unfortunate notions were being espoused by a man who, in his better endeavours, was rigorously scientific. Basically, he was going off on one. You are excusing the inexcusable. But he was still a great scientist. But only when he was doing science. Einstein was a great scientist too. But not when he was playing the fiddle.