Re: Find "py.exe" & copy it to "Python" (flat, no extension).

On 2024-06-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 01:52:09 -0400, Joel wrote:
>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
 

He doesn't follow God, he's a racist, a phobe, a Catholic dupe.

>
The accumulation of evidence is overwhelming by now that there is no
contradiction between the first of those things and the rest.

 
Or so it would be convenient for an atheist to assert ...

>
Religionists do tend to prioritize their ideology over evidence, don’t
they?

Evolutionists are big on "just so" stories. They believe (by faith) how the
extremely highly improbable always just "mystically" happens, and that
"evolution" somehow knows how to anticipate the thousands of necessary
mutations that will eventually all work (beneficially) together towards some
specific goal.

And this is all supposed to be a result of blind "chance."

You have to be amazingly gullible to believe this crap. That's why
evolutionists claim there is the so-called "fact" of evolution (in other
words what they believe by faith) and the "theories" of evolution (in other
words the pathetic attempts at explaining this extremely improbable theory).

Basically what evolutionists do is give "Evolution" God-like powers endowing
it with the ability to create whatever is needed so "support" the theory.

   “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 is thus exactly
   parallel to the 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, Introduction to Charles Darwin, Origin of the
   Species (1971 edition)
  
   “To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is
   entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based
   on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical
   evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely
   complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are
   swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so
   many scientists without murmur of protest.”

   (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner, as cited in “Was Darwin Wrong” by
   Francis Hitching, LIFE magazine, April 1982, p.50)

   “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
   sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science
   and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent
   absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill
   many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the
   tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so
   stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
   It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us
   to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
   contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes
   to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that
   produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter
   how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is
   absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

   Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard
   University], “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Review of “The
   Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan, New
   York Review, January 9, 1997.

   Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists
   still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life,
   and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first
   self-replicating organism….How did huge information-rich molecules arise
   before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking
   nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of
   life – the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation,
   and little or no fact.

   — Dr. Christopher Williams, professor of biochemistry at Ohio State
   University
  
   “That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection,
   acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of
   which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and
   organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry
   out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit,
   is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the
   invertebrate’s retina and that of the vertebrates poses another
   difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with
   no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of
   intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order.”

   Dr H. S. Hamilton. MD. ‘The Retina of the Eye – An Evolutionary Road
   Block'
  
Evolution is a sad joke.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..."     — St. Augustine