"Darwinists" appear to have (at least) four hands ...

[James L Thomson]

Ilíon wrote:

Oddly enough, we *never* see physicists saying things like "gravitation is as well proven as 'modern evolutionary theory'"

2 reasons: 1) The Theory of Gravity is not as well supported as modern evolutionary theory. 2) You don't have a large enough group of ignoramuses saying things like "Gravity is wrong because the moon stays up there without falling".

[Rob Graham]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Lost User]

Ilíon wrote:

Ah, yes, the old ""evolution" (whatever that word means) is as well "proven" (which word your set also avoids understanding) as gravity" gambit.

:rolleyes: I merely asked whether Newton's philosophy was now acceptable to your lot. I understand that the 'all truth is revealed in the Pentateuch' brigade of 250 years ago despised Newton. Do their descendants still do so?

Bob Emmett

[Tim Craig]

Dalek Dave wrote:

The day he figures out what an Arse he is?

Doesn't he first have to figure out where his arse is? :laugh:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[0x3c0]

Between his nose and his chin

[Ilion]

James L. Thomson wrote:

Ilíon wrote: Oddly enough, we *never* see physicists saying things like "gravitation is as well proven as 'modern evolutionary theory'" 2 reasons: 1) The Theory of Gravity is not as well supported as modern evolutionary theory. 2) You don't have a large enough group of ignoramuses saying things like "Gravity is wrong because the moon stays up there without falling".

Ah! The famous circular -- and invisible -- "mountain of evidence!" :rolleyes: You boys just don't *do* linear logic, do you? Observe:

"The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'?" said Chakrabarti, an associate research scholar in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton. ... . The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. ...

Translation: 1) 'modern evolutionary theory' does not make, and has never made, sense in light of what it is asserted to explain -- and biologists *know* that this is the case! 2) despite that invisible and circularly "argued" "mountain of evidence," 'modern evolutionary theorists' have *no* explanation for what they choose to call "evolution" -- and biologists *know* that this is the case! 2a) which is to say, there *is* no actual theory of "evolution" -- and biologists *know* that this is the case! But, The Trvth of "evolution" must be protected, and logical reasoning certainly takes the hindmost:

The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the early stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a self-regulating mechanism, analogous to a car's cruise control or a home's thermostat, allowing them to fine-tune and control their subsequent evolution. The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling "evolutionary control."

Translation: 1) "random mutation and natural selection" is incapable of *bei

[Ilion]

Bob Emmett wrote:

:rolleyes: I merely asked whether Newton's philosophy was now acceptable to your lot. I understand that the 'all truth is revealed in the Pentateuch' brigade of 250 years ago despised Newton. Do their descendants still do so?

:rolleyes: yourself, you intellectually dishonest (and patheticly so) person

[Ilion]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: What poor, pathetic, irrational children you 'modern evolutionary theorists' are. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[soap brain]

Wow, congratulations! :) When are you getting your Nobel Prize?

[Ilion]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Wow, congratulations! :) When are you getting your Nobel Prize?

Silly and foolish child: You people do not want to know/understand truth, none of you at any level.

[soap brain]

Ilíon wrote:

Silly and foolish child: You people do not want to know/understand truth, none of you at any level.

Ahh, a conspiracy! That IS the most sensible explanation.

[Lost User]

Ilion wrote:

Ah, yes, the old ""evolution" (whatever that word means) is as well "proven" (which word your set also avoids understanding) as gravity" gambit.

I am currently reading 18th century English literature (Fielding, Richardson, Smollett, et al). In the accompanying Notes, reference was made to publications attacking Newton's philosophy because it contradicted the teachings in the Pentateuch. As you have attacked evolution and geological dating, I was curious to know whether Newton was still under attack from your lot. 'Evolution is as well proven as Gravity' as a gambit is quite meaningless. Are you sure people use it? I also find it inexplicable that you resort silence or insults. (If you find the phrase 'your lot' insulting, I'm sorry. What would you prefer: Fundamentalists, Creationists, or what?)

Bob Emmett