Re: Kook: A New Generation of Scientists Turning Against Evolution

On Oct 9, 1:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:653fd948-6961-4df3-9c53-005d9e6fde1d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 9, 10:04 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

D'Sousza is an Evolutionist. He admitted this plainly in his debate
with Daniel Dennett. So are the solid majority of Fundamentalists
(microevolutionists).

Which means your "majority" of the US population are "evolutionists" as
well.

Yes, a very large majority (40 percent range). Once I identify this
same "majority" in the Bible, guess what?

You'll then claim the "majority is always wrong", except when the "majority"
is supposedly on your side.    This just indicates your own illogical
position.

But YECs do not accept the main claim of Darwinism: macroevolution,
speciation, common ancestry-common descent-human evolution, so they
are not evolutionists.

Of course, they have no rational reason to deny speciation.   Speciation has
been directly observed.

Of course all Atheists are Evolutionists too.

Not all atheists are "evolutionists". Even if they were, that doesn't
change the validity of the theory.

For all intents and purposes all Atheists are evolutionists----

Another argument by assertion.

fanatical in their blind devotion to say the least.

Do you have any evidence of this "fanatical blind devotion"?

Your continual
opposition to this self-evident fact tells us that you believe the
fact harms evolutionary theory. Of course you are absolutely right.

Ray, as I just stated above, the number, or percentage of atheists who
accept the scientific theory of evolution can hardly 'harm" the theory of
evolution.   It's the evidence that supports the theory ,not the number of
religionists, or non religionists who accept the theory.     Your claim is
wrong, and even if were right, it's irrelevant.

I
am an immutabilist like most scientific men were before the rise of
Darwinism.

However, unlike those scientific men, your position is based on willfull
ignorance, and inablity to admit being wrong. Those "sceintific men"
changed their minds when presented with the evidence. You choose to
cling to ignorance, in face of reality.

DJT
A solid core of these scientific men rejected Darwin's theory.

They did, however accept the concept of common descent.    They didn't feel
that natural selection and variation were enough of a mechanism.   They were
proven wrong.


Even fruit loop John Wilkins corrected you on these conflations which
you still cling to. There is no use in posting the link because you
never admit to any error----never, even when it is obvious you make
the face saving excuse that your opponent has "misunderstood" (=
dishonesty). The "Common Descent" scantly entertained, here and there,
before 1859, has no correspondence to Darwin's radical pro-Atheism CD.
Dana: you are a lightweight with no historical knowledge. Common
Descent and evolution were vehemently rejected by science before 1859.
Modern science has existed at least since the invention of the
printing press and it held Creationism to be true supported by an
enormous database of scientific facts. It was this database that
Darwin simply re-interpreted. Read his source cites that were later
added to the "Origin." Most, if not all of these sources were
Creationists who accepted the Genesis Special Creation hypothesis to
explain species existence in nature. Your silly and constant
misrepresentation of Creationism as being *strictly* a religious
belief has Darwin using religious beliefs to source the "Origin." You
deny these basic and undisputed histories because you have already
opened your ignorant mouth contrary to these basic and undisputed
facts. Your entire approach reinterprets all facts to support whatever
you have already foolishly opened your mouth in favor of. You have no
integrity, misrepresent every little thing, caused by a deep
frustration and the inability to admit to any errors no matter how
small.

Natural selection was an obscure scientific concept before 1858. Most
scientists never even encountered it. Transmutation was vehemently
rejected by most scientists (all in England). All of the great
scientists before 1859 were Creationists who accepted and vehemently
promoted special creation and its scientific evidence in their
publications. These are **basic** historical facts established by the
primary sources themselves, confirmed by secondary sources, pro-
evolution historians. Your constant denials and distortions, and
inability to admit to these basic facts is because, like I said, you
have foolishly and ignorantly opened your mouth and cannot admit that
you are wrong. You are just the typical lying evolutionist on the
Internet proven to be as such by your own scholars.

I have wasted enough time giving ear to your demon and his constant
contradictions, misrepresentations, distortions and caricatures. To
tender even one more reply to your self-evident made-up nonsense
"supported" by delusional "logic" is a huge step down----a step that I
will not take anymore. The fact that you reply to just about every
message that I make means that you believe that I represent the
gravest threat to evolution (I take that as a compliment, of course).
Your tactic of constant misrepresentation is simply a testimony to
your inability to refute anything that I have actually said. Your
refusal to accept facts produced by your own historians proves that
you are dishonest. You can follow me around like a scorned woman----I
can't stop you. But I have no intention of engaging you anymore
because you are dishonest and because you deliberately misrepresent
everything I say and everything published historians say in service to
your agenda of defending everything that you have already spoken up
for. No person in their right mind would allow their intelligence to
be insulted this way indefinitely. I have made a huge mistake against
my reputation by engaging a person like you.

Ray

SNIP....

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Frank J demonstrates the zealous desparation secularists have
    ...     Victor Hanson-Smith, ... transmembrane ring of the eukaryotic V-ATPase proton pump—increased ... evolution of novel functions. ... care about the facts. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Kook: A New Generation of Scientists Turning Against Evolution
    ...    This just indicates your own illogical ... speciation, common ancestry-common descent-human evolution, so they ... enormous database of scientific facts. ... rejected by most scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Have we become alt.atheism?
    ... scientific facts and Scripture. ... Evolution must be extricated from its pro-Atheism claims or your ...  Most intelligent Christians have decided ...   Why can't God use fallible humans to write his book? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Blog: Catholic scientists deny evolution.
    ... to "A Scientific Critique of Evolution." ... five Catholic scientists to reveal "the bankruptcy of the evolutionary ...     * Pierre Rabischong, ... apes only increases the problem of why humans, and they alone, think, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Making a monkey out of Darwin
    ... share a common ancestor, ... scientists, and they almost invariably admit that it is for religious ...   We are all related by common descent. ... accept evolution because of the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)