From Newsgroup: alt.atheism


The truth is, if there isn't an obvious commercial
or national security application, there is no such
thing as science. It's all politics...



Now there are thousands of men & women sporting every
conceivable academic credential & boasting of decades
of experience, all willing to stand in line to tell
me that IrCOm wrong, that IrCOm an idiot, that I donrCOt
know what IrCOm talking about. But the truth is that
Paleoanthropology is not a real science, and if you
have any idea what real science is yourCOre going to
agree with me.

Let me prove it to you.

To illustrate the biggest issue IrCOll start with an
old joke which I will now repeat here quite poorlyrCa

So itrCOs late at night and a man is walking down the
street when he comes across this gentleman under a
street lamp, on all fours & frantically searching
for something.

rCLWhatrCOs the problem?rCY the first man asks, more
curious than concerned.

rCLWell,rCY explains the second man,rCL I was standing
over there,rCY he says while pointing to a dark corner
on the other side of the street, rCLwhen I dropped my
house key. IrCOm going to need it to get inside my
home.rCY

rCLBut if you dropped it way over there, why are you
searching for it here?rCY the first man asked.

Gesturing towards the street light above, rCLThe light
over here is better,rCY he explains.

Of course you can see the stupidity in searching for
something where the light is better, instead of
where you lost it. It doesnrCOt matter how good the
light is, or how much help you get, if something
isnrCOt there yourCOre never going to find it. You
understand this. This makes sense to you. This,
however, is diametrically opposed to the workings
of Paleoanthropology.

ItrCOs all about the ice age.

For most of human evolution, and certainly this is
true for the last 3 million years or so, the ice
age was the engine of change. The glaciers rose,
sea levels dropped rCo opening up vast treks of new
land. But, not just land, these were highways for
our prehuman ancestors to travel, to spread out
of Africa, across to the Arabian peninsular and
beyond into Asia, Europe and even Australia.
Mainstream paleoanthropology accepts this,
preaches this even, and yet they throw it aside
and base all their conclusions on a model where
this doesnrCOt exist at all.

See, if the coast was the highway which spread
our pre modern ancestors across the world while
keeping us genetically linked (a single species),
then our ancestors were living on the coast. They
didnrCOt have dune buggies. They werenrCOt just
driving along the beach for some hours each day,
and then pulling off at a nearby Savanna to hunt
& gather. They were living off the ocean. They
were adapting to the aquatic environment. But,
regardless, these coastal populations, these
spreaders of humanity, this conduit of human DNA
is what made us human. As evolution produced new
genes in, say, Africa or even Asia, it was
through these coastal populations that they
arrived elsewhere, keeping us one.

Nobody cares about these populations.

Paleoanthropology doesnrCOt even acknowledge that they
would have to exist. ItrCOs dependent upon them 100%,
sure. It requires there existence to get our
ancestors out of Africa in the first place, it even
posits numerous waves leaving Africa(*), but then
paleoanthropology immediately turns around and
pretends they donrCOt exist.

Nobody has ever even looked for them. Again, itrCOs
all about the ice age.

Now the ice age isnrCOt what most people think it is.
They think that an ice age is when Europe and north
America are under a sheet of ice, and when they are
not under a sheet of ice the ice age is over. WRONG!

An ice age isnrCOt one long stretch of frozen glaciers.
Nope. ItrCOs actually a cycle. The glaciers grow,
spread and then retreat again as a warming period,
called an rCLinterglacial period,rCY takes over. This
warming period comes to an end and the whole cycle
repeats itselfrCa again & again. We are inside an
interglacial period now. ThatrCOs right, we are still
in an ice age. It hasnrCOt ended ended. What did end
was the last glacial period. There is another one
set to begin within the next few thousand years.

During the height of the ice age rCo glacial maximum
rCo the sea levels were much lower. Sea level was more
than 100 meters lower than it is today! For
Americans: WerCOre talking almost 400 feet! ThatrCOs
how much sea level dropped. And what this means is
that the coastal routes traveled by our pre human
ancestors, the environments they lived in, adapted
to, the physical remains of those populations
responsible for making us human are presently below
some 100 meters or more of water.

Nobody is looking for them.

This brings me back to my joke, the one about the
man searching for his key NOT where he lost it,
but where the light is better. Paleoanthropologists
donrCOt look for our ancestors where they most likely
lived. They donrCOt look for our ancestors where their
very own models say they need to be.
Paleoanthropologists look for our ancestors where
itrCOs convenient for them to look, and they base all
of their decisions on those finds. This is a
selection bias. None of their conclusions meet
decent scientific standards, all are based on
cherry picked and likely unrepresentative data and
they all know it. And swear it isnrCOt true.


This was from a 2012 thread of mine, elsewhere on
the Interwebs (not usenet)
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

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.
--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

JTEM wrote:

The truth is, if there isn't an obvious commercial
or national security application, there is no such
thing as science. It's all politics...

As you say, all science is lies and the origin story from the Bible is a
big steaming pile of bullshit by the Krister Kult.

Christians are lying cultists, especially the American ones.

The true story is here:
In the beginning there was chaos. Chaos was a swirling mass of energy and matter that existed before the creation of the universe. It was formless
and dark, a void of nothingness from which all things would eventually
emerge. From this primordial chaos, the first deities came into being.

The first deity to emerge from chaos was Gaia, the Earth goddess. Gaia was
a powerful and nurturing figure, associated with fertility and growth. She
was the mother of all living things and the source of life itself. Gaia was followed by Ouranos, the sky god, who became her consort. Together, Gaia
and Ouranos created the heavens and the earth, establishing the foundation upon which the universe would be built.

As the sky and the earth took shape, other deities emerged from the chaos.
One of the most important of these was Chronos, the god of time. Chronos
was a primordial force that governed the passage of time and the cycles of
the universe. He was a powerful and enigmatic figure, with the ability to shape the destiny of gods and mortals alike.

Another key deity in the Roman creation story was Saturn, who was the son
of Gaia and Ouranos. Saturn was a complex figure, associated with
agricultural abundance and the changing of the seasons. He was also known
as the god of time, echoing his father Chronos in his ability to shape the course of events. Saturn ruled over a golden age of peace and prosperity,
when humanity lived in harmony with the natural world.

However, SaturnAs reign was not to last. He was eventually overthrown by
his son Jupiter, who emerged as the supreme ruler of the universe. Jupiter
was a powerful and authoritative figure, associated with thunder and lightning. He was the king of the gods, presiding over the heavens and the earth with wisdom and justice.

Under JupiterAs rule, the universe continued to flourish and expand. He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, which illuminated the heavens and provided light and warmth to the earth. Jupiter also established the laws
of nature, ensuring that order and balance were maintained in the cosmos.

One of the most famous stories from Roman mythology is the tale of the creation of mankind. According to legend, Jupiter sent the demi-god
Prometheus to fashion humans out of clay. Prometheus imbued his creations
with intelligence and free will, allowing them to think and act for themselves. However, in a moment of hubris, Prometheus stole fire from the heavens and gave it to humanity, leading to his punishment by Jupiter.

Despite the challenges and trials that humanity faced, they persevered and eventually thrived under JupiterAs watchful eye.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com 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...
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:56:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108oni1$13oqk$2@dont-email.me> wrote:

On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com 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. Either
you are deliberately getting it wrong or you are too
ignorant or mentally conditioned by your silly superstition
to understand it.

I don't know which it is, but I really don't care. It
doesn't matter any more than you do.
--


Every person in the US is here either
legally or illegally. Those that are
here illegally should be afraid.
Be very afraid. It does not matter
how long you have been here. It does
not matter why you are here. It does not
matter what you have done legally while you
were here. It does not matter what any
relative may have done while you were here.
It only matters that you are here illegally.
It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer
but we will find you and we will deport you.
Be prepared.

Deport them all.

All politicians are trained to lie
and make those lies sound like
the truth. They start with the biggest
lie of all: Politicians are public
servants.

The Dims have an appropriate party
symbol: A jackass.

National Socialist American Workers Party
(NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party

Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I support:

A Constitional Amendment establishing
the Freedom of Choice.

The elimination of public expression,
display or support of religion or
religious positions.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/29/25 11:55 AM, Attila wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:56:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108oni1$13oqk$2@dont-email.me> wrote:

On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com 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.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/29/2025 4:58 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 8/29/25 11:55 AM, Attila wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:56:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108oni1$13oqk$2@dont-email.me> wrote:

On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com 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?-a 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!-a 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.

In archeology, there has never been a reversal. You can look all that
you want, you will never find mammalian life in Devonian rock. If you disagree, you can come by where I live (Cedar Rapids, Iowa), and go just
south to the Coralville area. No mammals are present in the bedrock
there, along with the millions of other non-mammalian fossils.

As for C14 dating, researches can calibrate such with artifacts with
known ages from the past, and so, its good to about 50K BP. Beyond
that, other radioactive isotopes are used; the same sample containing different isotopes can be calibrated. Remember, it's the ratio of parent/daughter elements that gets measured.

Dawn

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:108t7p9$28t4m$1@dont-email.me:

On 8/29/25 11:55 AM, Attila wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:56:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108oni1$13oqk$2@dont-email.me> wrote:

On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com 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.




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

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?

Wow. That's pathetic!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 17:58:01 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108t7p9$28t4m$1@dont-email.me> wrote:

On 8/29/25 11:55 AM, Attila wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:56:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108oni1$13oqk$2@dont-email.me> wrote:

On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com 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.

Do you fish in your toilet?

Of course those who hunt fossils are going to hunt in
conditions where past discoveries have shown fossils may
exist. Just as you would not hunt tigers in Kansas or worry
about blizzards in Miami.

That does not mean conclusions were drawn and the supporting
evidence was found. The very definition of conclusion
prevents this from occurring.

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....

They can pretty much tell based upon skeletal remains and
sometimes even DNA when such can be found. It is not
difficult to tell the skeleton of a protohumans from one of
a T Rex.

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 can redeem yourself, somewhat, by identifying precisely what you're >pretending is wrong, and explaining WHY.

I'm asking too much, I know.

--


Every person in the US is here either
legally or illegally. Those that are
here illegally should be afraid.
Be very afraid. It does not matter
how long you have been here. It does
not matter why you are here. It does not
matter what you have done legally while you
were here. It does not matter what any
relative may have done while you were here.
It only matters that you are here illegally.
It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer
but we will find you and we will deport you.
Be prepared.

Deport them all.

All politicians are trained to lie
and make those lies sound like
the truth. They start with the biggest
lie of all: Politicians are public
servants.

The Dims have an appropriate party
symbol: A jackass.

National Socialist American Workers Party
(NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party

Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I support:

A Constitional Amendment establishing
the Freedom of Choice.

The elimination of public expression,
display or support of religion or
religious positions.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:108u2r6$2e9s0$1@dont-email.me:

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?

If Darwin is wrong what is right?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/30/25 8:39 AM, Attila wrote:

Of course those who hunt fossils are going to hunt in
conditions where past discoveries have shown fossils may
exist.

The Rift Valley is precisely where any Eurasian species is going to
cross over to Africa. It's precisely where any Aquatic Ape species
is going to move inland. In fact, there was a species of manta ray
that did exactly that: Followed the freshwater sources inland &
stayed, adapted. Yet everything is interpreted as going the other
way and NOT going the other way!

How old is the oldest chimp fossil? Do you even know?

It's about half a million years old, and we're only talking teeth.

Half a million... *Way* younger than erectus!

Conclusion: Chimps are 6 to 20 million years old!

But if teeth are even definitive, if we can tell just by looking
at teeth, then Ardipithecus or Australopithecus was in Germany
10 million years ago!

Oldest monkey fossils? NOT EVEN FOUND IN EURASIA! Monkeys are
known from the Americas, and diversified, by 35 million years ago!

Remember the Naledi idiocy? It only took six years for something
to... look up.

That's the story, anyway, and they're going to stick to it...

Just as you would not hunt tigers in Kansas or worry
about blizzards in Miami.

You're proving my point. Your CONCLUSION dictates your hunt for
evidence. Sometimes that can make sense but, this is not one of
those times.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

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.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 01:48:04 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:108t7p9$28t4m$1@dont-email.me:

On 8/29/25 11:55 AM, Attila wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:56:32 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<108oni1$13oqk$2@dont-email.me> wrote:

On 8/27/25 8:54 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com 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.

JTEM has nothing but his religious belief. Having a religious
belief, as JTEM proves he does, isn't instantly a bad thing. And it's
actually normal to have a religious belief. But this doesn't make the
belief true.
--
Kenito Benito
Strategic Writer,
Psychotronic World Dominator.
And FEMA camp counselor.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/30/25 10:37 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:

JTEM has nothing but his

If that were true, why wouldn't you be responding to
this JTEM, instead of your own sock puppet?

Paleo anthropology is to anthropology what biblical
archaeology is to archaeology. It BEGINS with conclusions
and interprets all the evidence within the context of
that conclusion, sometimes to the point of inventing
and/or ignoring evidence.

Savanna idiocy can't explain ANYTHING, not even the
savanna! Did they reach China more than 2 million years
ago carrying a savanna on their backs? Is that it? Then
how does the savanna explain human dispersal?

Quite frankly there is no "Out of Africa" model. They
just say it happened. That's it.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:108v1r1$2lbtj$2@dont-email.me:

On 8/30/25 9:47 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:

If Darwin is wrong then what do you believe is right?

Well?

So you're claiming

I am not claiming anything, just
answer the question about what you believe.

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.

You didn't answer the question.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

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.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/30/2025 9:28 AM, JTEM wrote:

On 8/30/25 9:47 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:

-a-a-a-a 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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

"Attila" wrote in message news:ver5bk5dl1bfhmokc8h13efjnpakcanf8s@4ax.com...

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"






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:108vp3t$2remd$2@dont-email.me:

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!

What you deleted:

If Darwin is wrong then what do you believe is right?

Well?

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> 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:

-a-a-a-a 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.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:NkNsQ.31561$yb25.6967@fx03.ams4:

"Attila" wrote in message
news:ver5bk5dl1bfhmokc8h13efjnpakcanf8s@4ax.com...

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










Henry Gee
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB34BD1CE34425629555@69.80.101.13...

"Andrew" wrote in news:NkNsQ.31561$yb25.6967@fx03.ams4:

"Attila" wrote in message news:ver5bk5dl1bfhmokc8h13efjnpakcanf8s@4ax.com...

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



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/30/25 7:02 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:

Another question, "Why has Darwin's Origin of Species never gone out of 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.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

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.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 18:13:40 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <NkNsQ.31561$yb25.6967@fx03.ams4> wrote:

"Attila" wrote in message news:ver5bk5dl1bfhmokc8h13efjnpakcanf8s@4ax.com...

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.

No, I simply rely on a process that involves actual fact and
adjusts positions as required by new data.

What do you believe and why?

There is no mechanism for us to have evolved from
some lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized
evolutionary pathway.

That is rather broad statement. In science anyone who uses
the phrase "there is no" usually is only demonstrating
ignorance.

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"

Does that represent the position of the majority of the
researchers or just a few nuts?


--


Every person in the US is here either
legally or illegally. Those that are
here illegally should be afraid.
Be very afraid. It does not matter
how long you have been here. It does
not matter why you are here. It does not
matter what you have done legally while you
were here. It does not matter what any
relative may have done while you were here.
It only matters that you are here illegally.
It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer
but we will find you and we will deport you.
Be prepared.

Deport them all.

All politicians are trained to lie
and make those lies sound like
the truth. They start with the biggest
lie of all: Politicians are public
servants.

The Dims have an appropriate party
symbol: A jackass.

National Socialist American Workers Party
(NSAWP) formally known as the Democrat Party

Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I support:

A Constitional Amendment establishing
the Freedom of Choice.

The elimination of public expression,
display or support of religion or
religious positions.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/30/2025 11:25 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 8/30/25 7:02 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:

Another question, "Why has Darwin's Origin of Species never gone out
of 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's a simple question. Why is Darwin's Origin available for purchase
brand new here:

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/1619491303

And, here:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-origin-of-species-charles-darwin/1116788568

And, here!

https://www.walmart.com/ip/The-Origin-of-Species-150th-Anniversary-Edition-Paperback-9780451529060/2217242

(This is where I shop.)

And, even here!!

https://www.target.com/p/the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/-/A-94814369

(Where I rarely shop. In spite of their claims, their prices are higher!)

Dawn


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/30/2025 8:37 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:

Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> 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:

-a-a-a-a 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.

Yeah!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1090j1f$31647$4@dont-email.me:

On 8/30/25 9:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:

What you deleted

Darwin was wrong.

Then what do you believe is right?

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:Q5OsQ.11398$6rQd.2406@fx13.ams4:

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB34BD1CE34425629555@69.80.101.13...

"Andrew" wrote in news:NkNsQ.31561$yb25.6967@fx03.ams4:

"Attila" wrote in message
news:ver5bk5dl1bfhmokc8h13efjnpakcanf8s@4ax.com...

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

Evolution does not need a line
of fossils for proof. It has been
observed and documented.




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




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 19:06:00 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB34BD1CE34425629555@69.80.101.13... >> "Andrew" wrote in news:NkNsQ.31561$yb25.6967@fx03.ams4:

"Attila" wrote in message news:ver5bk5dl1bfhmokc8h13efjnpakcanf8s@4ax.com...

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 01:37:01 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:

Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> 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:

-a-a-a-a 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.

It's the sign of someone who doesn't understand how to debate
and only wants to shout his/her belief over and over. JTEM will do so
until everyone gives up, allowing him to claim he was able to defeat
everyone with his "sound" arguments.
Most grow out of this method around age 10. JTEM proves not
everyone does, presuming he isn't a juvenile. Which is possible.
--
Kenito Benito
Strategic Writer,
Psychotronic World Dominator.
And FEMA camp counselor.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 8/30/2025 9:06 PM, Andrew wrote:

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB34BD1CE34425629555@69.80.101.13...

"Andrew" wrote in news:NkNsQ.31561$yb25.6967@fx03.ams4:

"Attila" wrote in message
news:ver5bk5dl1bfhmokc8h13efjnpakcanf8s@4ax.com...

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."

-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ~ 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-" -a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ~ HG

Andrew,

The above quote is silly & absurd; it does not matter from whom it came
from, nor their credentials. ("Nullius in verba.") Here's a *testable* hypothesis in paleontology, one of countless:

No mammalian species in Devonian strata.

Simple, right?

Dawn
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1090irt$31647$2@dont-email.me:

On 8/30/25 7:02 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:

Another question, "Why has Darwin's Origin of Species never gone out

of

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


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

"Kenito Benito" wrote in message news:dfk8bk9e8jcfqajbugcvhtlginjle6cvrp@4ax.com...

"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.

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.

--
Kenito Benito
Strategic Writer,
Psychotronic World Dominator.
And FEMA camp counselor.

Ever work at DULCE?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB34CD13788746629555@69.80.102.12...

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.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2