Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.

It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.

Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD

In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.

New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins

The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.

Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge

Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."

Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156

"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."

More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"

Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.



>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

IS THERE NO SHAME?

Joe Paterno was fired by the Penn State Board of Trustees on Wednesday night as head football coach of Penn State. It was the first good decision that has been made in the last two decades by the leaders of Penn State. The man was told that his Defensive coordinator was seen in the locker room shower raping a 10 year old boy in 2002. He did not call the police and report this crime. He and the other top officials at Penn State brushed this crime under the rug, allowing at least seven more young boys to be raped by this monster. The 28 year old graduate assistant not only did nothing to stop the crime he witnessed, but he accepted a position as an assistant coach, knowing that Paterno and the Athletic Director never did anything to hold Sandusky accountable for his crime. Sandusky was still on campus working out as of last week. The actions of all the players in this disgusting example of how far our society has degenerated are enough to make someone lose all hope for humanity:

• Jerry Sandusky creates a charitable organization so he can gain access to little boys. Multiple incidents are witnessed on campus from 1994 through 2002. A mother reports Sandusky to the Penn State police in 1998 and nothing is done by the men in the Administration. The investigation is dropped, but Tim Curley forces Sandusky to retire in 1999. It is clear that everyone in the top echelon of Penn State knew Sandusky was a deviant pedophile. But letting it become public would have been a black mark on the football program and could have reduced the huge profits generated by Paterno’s kingdom.
• After his forced retirement he is still given access to the campus and locker room facilities. He is caught having anal sex with a 10 year old boy in the locker room shower by a 28 year old man, who chooses not to intervene and save the boy. Joe Paterno does the absolute minimum when informed of this horrific crime. After this crime is covered up by all the key men running the show at Penn State, it just becomes business as usual for Joe and his cronies.
• Sandusky continues to rape little boys for the next eight years because of the cowardice and complete lack of morality exhibited by the men in high places at Penn State.
• With the issuance of the grand jury report last week, the psychotic nature of these men was on display for the world to witness. In a stunning display of arrogance and hubris, Paterno and the President of Penn State announced their full support for the Athletic Director and VP of Finance who were arrested. These men did not think they did anything wrong. They clung to the fact that they adhered to the laws created by other men. In a despicable display, Joe Paterno led a cheer at a pep rally in front of his house with his arms raised in victory. At least eight boys had their lives ruined and Joe Paterno leads a cheer.
• The Board of Trustees summoned the courage to fire Paterno and the President last night. In another display that makes me wonder about the future of our country, thousands of students rioted in support of Joe Paterno, breaking windows, turning over news vans, and starting fires. Are these young people incapable of critical thinking and are just driven by emotion and mindless rage? Can’t they distinguish between facts and lies? Do they care more about football than innocent children being raped?

Some background from Wikipedia:

To test the theory of a person’s ability to delay gratification, the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment (1972), conducted by Prof. Walter Mischel, at Stanford University, California, studied a group of four-year-old children, each of whom was given one marshmallow, but promised two on condition that he or she wait twenty minutes, before eating the first marshmallow. Some children were able to wait the twenty minutes, and some were unable to wait. Furthermore, the university researchers then studied the developmental progress of each participant child into adolescence, and reported that children able to delay gratification (wait) were psychologically better adjusted, more dependable persons, and, as high school students, scored significantly greater grades in the collegiate Scholastic Aptitude Test.[2] More recently, the study Foetal Alcohol Syndrome: Developmental Characteristics and Directions for further Research (1994) reported that children afflicted with foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) are less able to delay gratification; indicating, perhaps, that poor impulse control might originate biologically, in the brain.[3]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_gratification)

I agree with a lot of what blankfist is saying. It's time to starve the Federal government of its funds. Enough of its actions are immoral and evil, and I don't like having even a cent of my money furthering these actions.

I like Kucinich and Ron Paul too. Kucinich because if we are going to be taxed heavily by the government, the money should be spent well and in morally correct ways. But he's not running for President anymore and even if he was, most of what he supports would not get passed by Congress. So it's pointless to keep funding the Feds and hope that a Kucinich will some day become President and that hundreds of Kucinichs will some day take over Congress too.

So Ron Paul is all that's left, even though there's quite a bit of crazy stuff connected to him. At least with Paul's ideology, I can choose to support different causes with my money, and I can stop giving money to causes that start acting evil or immoral.

I don't think it's right to force people to help each other. If we are saying that we need to put a gun to the heads of the rich and force them to help the poor, sick, and elderly, that seems wrong to me. And that's what a lot of people seem to want. They want to use the force of law, backed by the threats of punishment and violence, to force rich people to help other people.

When I was in high school in 1999, I read a book on the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and how the world ignored the Genocide Convention of 1948, which required them to act when genocide occurs in the world. I was pretty pissed off that 400,000-1.2 million people were killed in Rwanda for genocidal reasons, and everyone ignored the Convention and did little about the genocide. But looking back, I don't think anyone should've signed the Genocide Convention. You shouldn't force people to help someone or some other country. It's wrong.

Searching religion and cats got me this sad piece of knowledge:

Beginning in the 11th century, tolerance for cats began to decrease in Europe for religious reasons, and “by the 13th century the church viewed witches as real and cats as instruments of the devil” (Lynnlee, p. 20). Dante (1265–1321), for example, mentioned cats only once in his work and compared them to demons. From the 14th century well into the 18th century, cats were regularly killed on specific religious holidays. “By the late 15th century the persecution of cats and witches was a mainstay of European society. . . . The 15th and 16th centuries are almost devoid of any cat literature and art. . . . During this period the cat still was used to control rodents, but it was rarely seen as a pet, for if so its existence and that of its owner were in jeopardy” (Lynnlee, p. 21). Cats became especially associated with heretical religious sects, such as the Waldensians and Manichaeans, and members of these sects were accused of worshiping the Devil in the form of a black cat.

On feast days all over Europe, as a symbolic means of driving out the Devil, they were captured and tortured, tossed onto bonfires, set alight and chased through the streets, impaled on spits and roasted alive, burned at the stake, plunged into boiling water, whipped to death, and hurled from the tops of tall buildings, all in an atmosphere of extreme festive merriment. (Serpell JA, The domestication and history of the cat, in Turner DC and Bateson P, eds, The Domestic Cat, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 156).

"At Metz, for example, on “cat Wednesday” during Lent, 13 cats were placed in an iron cage and publicly burned; this ritual took place each year from 1344 to 1777" (Kete K, The Beast in the Boudoir, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994, p. 119).

(http://www.stanleyresearch.org/dnn/LaboratoryofDevelopmentalNeurovirology/ToxoplasmosisSchizophreniaResearch/IAllaboutCats/tabid/173/Default.aspx)


Great, as if we needed more reasons to hate religion...

Why does this remind me of grunge? Ah! Wikipedia informs me this album was 1994. Though apparently it's post-hardcore. Genre's are confusing

I loved these guys back when their show ran from 1989 to 1994. My wife and I drove through a raging blizzard to see them on their reunion tour in Boston in 2000, it was worth it. I've seen some clips from their later tours and TV show and they are pretty stale and unfunny these days. But they were brilliant back in the day.

It looks like it was this 1994 crash..

3 Die When Firefighting Plane Explodes in Midair
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-14/local/me-27117_1_forest-service

*history *music

FYI from the video's description:

List of films used:
00:06 - A Fistful of Dynamite (aka 'Duck, You Sucker!') (1971)
00:26 - The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
00:32 - The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954)
00:33 - The Bridge on the River Kwai ("Madness") (1957)
00:35 - True Lies (1994)

00:43 - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
00:45 - Hogan's Heroes (1965)
00:47 - The Wild Bunch (1969)
00:52 - Monsters vs Aliens (2009)
00:56 - The Core (2003)
00:58 - Tropic Thunder (2008)

01:06 - Mission: Impossible III (2006)
01:11 - I Am Legend (2007)
01:18 - A Bridge Too Far (1977)
01:21 - The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)

Music:
Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture, Op. 49 (by Bernard Haitink, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra)"

I think a hero can be more than a dangerous situation or accomplishments..

The man who works his fingers to the bone for his children and still has time to throw them around in the air like superman (That's to you dad.)

The woman who looks to an abusive husband and says, "Fuck you, I don't need you." (That's to you Mrs. Lawdeedaw--when she did that to her previous husband.)

The little girl who returns the penny to the man who dropped it because his mother gives 'that nod' to her. Then the man who smiles at her, and gives her a dollar for the effort.

We have sensationized 'hero' so much that few people are heroes at all. The Soldiers fighting the wars? Mecenaries. The cops? Same. It is why you do something that vastly outweights what you do.

*Steps off soapbox.

>> ^messenger:
I mostly like the risk/sacrifice definition of "hero", but I think there's also an element of "saving a dire situation with a feat of excellence at a critical moment". It's like when Joe Carter hit his walk-off home run to end the 1993 World Series (heroic), as opposed to when he merely caught the ball in a routine play at 1st base to win the 1994 series (not heroic). That's the one that I feel applies here which unquestionably makes this guy a hero.>> ^burdturgler:
>> ^EMPIRE:
He saved her, and that's great. Really is.
But... isn't the word hero being thrown around rather lightly? Why was that heroic at all?

I can't win with titles on the sift. I say a cop smashes a girls teeth out and I get called a liar because her teeth were only chipped out, not knocked out. A cop leaps forward and snatches a girl when she has half an inch of ass on the ledge of a 40 foot roof.. "hero" is too strong a word.
You say he saved her life and then ask why that's heroic in the same comment. Isn't that enough? What did you do today?

I mostly like the risk/sacrifice definition of "hero", but I think there's also an element of "saving a dire situation with a feat of excellence at a critical moment". It's like when Joe Carter hit his walk-off home run to end the 1993 World Series (heroic), as opposed to when he merely caught the ball in a routine play at 1st base to win the 1994 series (not heroic). That's the one that I feel applies here which unquestionably makes this guy a hero.>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^EMPIRE:
He saved her, and that's great. Really is.
But... isn't the word hero being thrown around rather lightly? Why was that heroic at all?

I can't win with titles on the sift. I say a cop smashes a girls teeth out and I get called a liar because her teeth were only chipped out, not knocked out. A cop leaps forward and snatches a girl when she has half an inch of ass on the ledge of a 40 foot roof.. "hero" is too strong a word.
You say he saved her life and then ask why that's heroic in the same comment. Isn't that enough? What did you do today?

Forgetting for a moment Democrat Blarney Fwank was the Architect of the Housing Collapse...

Maxine Waters charged with multiple violations by the House Ethics committee from activities starting in 2004, refused to step down, re-elected in 2010, Ethics trial to start soon.

Charlie Rangel charged with multiple violations by the House Ethics committee from activities starting in 2007, refused to step down, re-elected in 2010, ethics trial since 2010, ongoing…..

William Jefferson charged with multiple counts of corruption in 2006, refused to step down, re-elected in 2007, convicted of multiple counts of corruption in 2009

Marion Barry charged with multiple counts of drug offenses and perjury and convicted in 1990, refused to step down, jailed in 1991, re-elected in 1994, still "serving"...

And don't forget Gerry Studds!

Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were each separately censured by the House of Representatives for an inappropriate relationship with a congressional page — in Studds' case, a 1983 homosexual relationship with a 17-year-old male.

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

God damn there's some huge ejaculations, semens almost cumming out of you lot. Who would have thought a queer blowing off some christians could have caused such an orgy of banging at the keyboard. It's a metaphorical desert of paragraph sized dunes for anyone following this thread so I'll let Epicurus keep it brief.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

LOL It's like the argument for an all loving, omnipotent god was destroyed before Jesus was even born.

Note: This isn't why I'm not religious. I don't believe because I wasn't indoctrinated as a small child. That and the booze and drugs are still working for me da dum Ching1

Now before you, dear reader, set of oncemore into the desert of hopelessly convoluted diatribes, fill your camelskin bladders at the endlessly refreshing oasis of Bill Hicks, I believe named that after the comedian though I can't be sure of the chronology.

"The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options."

Bill Hicks - 16 December 1961 – 26 February 1994

Walked out on the director's cut of "The Abyss". I saw the mainstream release and liked it. Then took my wife to see the director's cut at a local film festival. That was in 1994, she still hasn't forgiven me.

Can't say that I blame her.