Darwin destroyed in new book

[alang1216]

TOTALLY WRONG.Do you observe 'evolution' NO

Here are some scientists that do not agree. They may have found a whole new type of organism:

Two lifeforms merge in once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event​

 

[Libby von H]

In their various writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists. They believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.

We now have the views on God of all 118 Founders and you are DEAD WRONG.
8 years research, 3 volumes, 2000 pages and YOU ARE DEAD WRONG

Buy the Books – Mark Boonstra

In Their Own Words

foundersownwords.com

 

[Libby von H]

Here are some scientists that do not agree. They may have found a whole new type of organism:

Two lifeforms merge in once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event​

See,I always go the actual report,being scientifically trained,and it is not what you say. NOT AT ALL

"what they are seeing may be a snapshot of the evolutionary process of bacterial-derived organelles that are nitrogen-fixing.

Researchers note, however, that more study is needed to demonstrate whether this is the case.

"The surprisingly tight size relationship between UCYN-A and its host can be explained by the resource economy of the partners. It suggests that UCYN-A may be on the path to becoming an organelle: whether it may already be so is the subject of ongoing research," said Michael J. Follows, professor of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at MIT and a member of the research team.

WHAT A DAMN LIAR YOU HAVE BEEN ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD

But I have exposed you

 

[Hollie]

We now have the views on God of all 118 Founders and you are DEAD WRONG.
8 years research, 3 volumes, 2000 pages and YOU ARE DEAD WRONG

Buy the Books – Mark Boonstra

In Their Own Words

foundersownwords.com

You're limited to a lot of cutting and pasting of material you don't understand.

Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philosopher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.

 

[Libby von H]

You're limited to a lot of cutting and pasting of material you don't understand.

Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philosopher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.

What BULLSHIT.

Here is Jefferson in the excerpt Dawkins used and you misinterpret.

============================

The Most Perverted System that Ever Shone on Man​

I’ve been reading The God Delusion, in preparation for a debate later today where I take the role, against Waldstein, of a “New Atheist.”

Oh God! Those New Atheists are so much more tedious, so much less brilliant, than those Old Atheists I studied so thoroughly at university. (But, hey, it’s Friday, and I’m a Catholic; so I’ll suffer it.)

They’re fairly unscholarly too. Here’s a good example. On page 64 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins memes a commonly made claim and attributes to Thomas Jefferson the quotation given in the title, arguing that it indicates that Jefferson was a Deist rather than a Theist:

Remarks of Jefferson’s such as ‘Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man’ are compatible with deism but also with atheism.

Well, no. The quotation comes from a letter of Jefferson to the scientist and philosopher, Joseph Priestly. I’ll quote it in context:

The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power & priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement; the President himself declaring, in one of his answers to addresses, that we were never to expect to go beyond them in real science. This was the real ground of all the attacks on you. Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy,—the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man,—endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame. But it was the Lilliputians upon Gulliver.

Now you well might wonder how Jefferson could in one breath refer to Christianity as “the most sublime & benevolent system”, and in the next call it the “most perverted” system. You would wonder that if you were unfamiliar with 18th c. English. What in the context the phrase “most perverted” means is “most frequently perverted,” that is, by those practitioners of “priesthood” who “live by mystery & charlantarie” – sentiments which are all fairly typical of 17th and 18th c. Deism.

You never would guess from that undeluded man, Dawkins, that Jefferson was referring to Christianity, in its pure form (as Jefferson saw it), as sublime and benevolent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You still believe we evolved from apes?

Well, we did. Cladistically. The common ancestors of all apes was indeed an ape. By definition.

 

[Hollie]

What BULLSHIT.

Here is Jefferson in the excerpt Dawkins used and you misinterpret.

============================

The Most Perverted System that Ever Shone on Man​

I’ve been reading The God Delusion, in preparation for a debate later today where I take the role, against Waldstein, of a “New Atheist.”

Oh God! Those New Atheists are so much more tedious, so much less brilliant, than those Old Atheists I studied so thoroughly at university. (But, hey, it’s Friday, and I’m a Catholic; so I’ll suffer it.)

They’re fairly unscholarly too. Here’s a good example. On page 64 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins memes a commonly made claim and attributes to Thomas Jefferson the quotation given in the title, arguing that it indicates that Jefferson was a Deist rather than a Theist:


Well, no. The quotation comes from a letter of Jefferson to the scientist and philosopher, Joseph Priestly. I’ll quote it in context:


Now you well might wonder how Jefferson could in one breath refer to Christianity as “the most sublime & benevolent system”, and in the next call it the “most perverted” system. You would wonder that if you were unfamiliar with 18th c. English. What in the context the phrase “most perverted” means is “most frequently perverted,” that is, by those practitioners of “priesthood” who “live by mystery & charlantarie” – sentiments which are all fairly typical of 17th and 18th c. Deism.

You never would guess from that undeluded man, Dawkins, that Jefferson was referring to Christianity, in its pure form (as Jefferson saw it), as sublime and benevolent.

Is your frantic use of bolded, gargantuan text intended to add that sense of urgency and melodrama to your rants?

If it's "quotes" you want....

The whole history of these books (i.e. the Gospels) is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

Thomas Jefferson



“There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”

Thomas Jefferson



Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

Thomas Jefferson

TOP 25 QUOTES BY THOMAS JEFFERSON (of 1811) | A-Z Quotes

Discover Thomas Jefferson famous and rare quotes. Share Thomas Jefferson quotations about liberty, politics and country. "The issue today is the same as it..."

www.azquotes.com

 

[Libby von H]

Well, we did. Cladistically. The common ancestors of all apes was indeed an ape. By definition.

Cladistically, what a moron

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cladistically, what a moron

View attachment 936603

You don't know what a clade is.

How frustrating for you to be among people so much smarter than yourself, discussing a topic you know nothing about.

 

[Libby von H]

You don't know what a clade is.

How frustrating for you to be among people so much smarter than yourself, discussing a topic you know nothing about.

Just remember that whole pseudo-science has been discredited

The Illogical Basis of Phylogenetic Nomenclature​

Roberto A. Keller, Richard N. Boyd and Quentin D. Wheeler

Botanical Review
Vol. 69, No. 1, Approaches in Examining the Existing Nomenclatural Systems Used in Biology (Jan. - Mar., 2003), pp. 93-110 (18 pages)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just remember that whole pseudo-science has been discredited

Liar.

You don't know anything about any of this, and you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[scruffy]

Liar.

You don't know anything about any of this, and you are embarrassing yourself.

It's too bad people have to be so negative. We're just now beginning to find out how life actually works, it's a wonderful and exciting time to be alive.

I will point you once again to the concept of ATTRACTORS, which ultimately tie back into nature's fundamental symmetries. Molecular symmetries are the same as atomic symmetries and quantum symmetries. Shape is symmetry. If a life form needs intracellular transport, it has to find a molecular structure that will support it.

 

[scruffy]

What BULLSHIT.

Here is Jefferson in the excerpt Dawkins used and you misinterpret.

============================

The Most Perverted System that Ever Shone on Man​

I’ve been reading The God Delusion, in preparation for a debate later today where I take the role, against Waldstein, of a “New Atheist.”

Oh God! Those New Atheists are so much more tedious, so much less brilliant, than those Old Atheists I studied so thoroughly at university. (But, hey, it’s Friday, and I’m a Catholic; so I’ll suffer it.)

They’re fairly unscholarly too. Here’s a good example. On page 64 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins memes a commonly made claim and attributes to Thomas Jefferson the quotation given in the title, arguing that it indicates that Jefferson was a Deist rather than a Theist:


Well, no. The quotation comes from a letter of Jefferson to the scientist and philosopher, Joseph Priestly. I’ll quote it in context:


Now you well might wonder how Jefferson could in one breath refer to Christianity as “the most sublime & benevolent system”, and in the next call it the “most perverted” system. You would wonder that if you were unfamiliar with 18th c. English. What in the context the phrase “most perverted” means is “most frequently perverted,” that is, by those practitioners of “priesthood” who “live by mystery & charlantarie” – sentiments which are all fairly typical of 17th and 18th c. Deism.

You never would guess from that undeluded man, Dawkins, that Jefferson was referring to Christianity, in its pure form (as Jefferson saw it), as sublime and benevolent.

So?

What does Dawkins or Darwin or anyone else have to do with the way God operates evolution?

Tell ya what - if you think you know how God operates you're an arrogant fuck and not worthy of discourse.

We DISCOVER how God operates. With science, which is the only thing that saves us from human opinion.

If you're willing to willfully put on blinders and exclude repeatable evidence you have a problem. It's a YOU problem and it has nothing to do with Dawkins or God.

 

[alang1216]

See,I always go the actual report,being scientifically trained,and it is not what you say. NOT AT ALL

"what they are seeing may be a snapshot of the evolutionary process of bacterial-derived organelles that are nitrogen-fixing.

Researchers note, however, that more study is needed to demonstrate whether this is the case.

"The surprisingly tight size relationship between UCYN-A and its host can be explained by the resource economy of the partners. It suggests that UCYN-A may be on the path to becoming an organelle: whether it may already be so is the subject of ongoing research," said Michael J. Follows, professor of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at MIT and a member of the research team.

I think I was accurate in my description of the article but I long to hear about your scientific training.

WHAT A DAMN LIAR YOU HAVE BEEN ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD

But I have exposed you

Funny, I don't feel the least bit exposed.

 

[scruffy]

Let's tell the whole story.

First of all, molecular evolution occurs in space, it doesn't require biological life at all.

Here is the latest example:

Researchers detect a new molecule in space

New research from the group of MIT Professor Brett McGuire has revealed the presence of a previously unknown molecule in space. The team's open-access paper, "Rotational Spectrum and First Interstellar Detection of 2-Methoxyethanol Using ALMA Observations of NGC 6334I," was published in the...

phys.org

Then secondly, humans are currently assembling a library of every possible protein. Assisted by AI. Research is of course focusing on the proteins that are most interesting from a medical standpoint.

Computational scoring and experimental evaluation of enzymes generated by neural networks - Nature Biotechnology

Metrics that predict the success of folding and the activity of designed protein sequences are developed and experimentally validated.

www.nature.com

Thirdly, any new "common ancestor" has to breed to survive. If there is only one instance, this means it has to cross breed with one of its ancestors, or some other existing species. So which animals can cross breed?

Lions and tigers
Whales and dolphins
Grizzlies and polar bears
Coyotes and wolves
Zebras and donkeys
Cows and buffalo
Sheep and goats

The picture becomes much clearer this way.

Speciation is an artifact. Everything mates with everything else.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Speciation is an artifact.

*of isolation

 

[ViewFromAbove]

NO, even the very word was used by philosophers and thinkers throughout Western Civilization to show that is wasn't theological

Hence 2 references within 1 sentence in the Declaration of Independence
" that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "

Really, you are way way way off

Those words were written by POLITICIANS who represented citizens with traditional or ignorant beliefs who were brainwashed/socialized to have "faith" in the absurd, as is evident today.

 

[Kruska]

1)There is not just 1 evolution !!!!

Darwin propagated his thesis onto the EVOLUTION of the Human sapiens and other living matter.
He never propagated that there was only 1 evolution in those 4.5 billion years.

That "natural selection" of living matter is obvious due to the known extreme varieties of atmospheric content and temperatures governing earth for 4.5 billion years - seems to totally elude you.

You simply can't get off your Adam&Eve propagating scriptures and childlike believes - that naturally lack any proof, whatsoever since 2000+ years.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I’m two thirds of the way through reading it. I thank the OP for suggesting it. I’ll have some comments on it when I’m done.

Quick question: is descent of all life on Earth from a common ancestor really the consensus? What does that mean exactly?

All plants and animals came from the same single event in which non-living matter transformed into living matter?

All organisms came from a single original cell?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

is descent of all life on Earth from a common ancestor really the consensus?

Yes. Overwhelming consensus. That's simply a restatement of the main assertion of the theory of evolution.

What does the mean exactly? All plants and animals came from the same single event in which non-living matter transformed into living matter?

No, it does not mean that. That's abiogenesis, and it is misstated. The first, early "life" no doubt arose several times. And no doubt there were many different "species" alive at the time of the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA).

But ONE individual of ONE species was the MRCA of all extant species. That's just mathematical certainty. It's not even complicated math.