Real Science…Not Darwin

[Blues Man]

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being. The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree. If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.

Define "fact."

Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out. Is god stupid or something

All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!

If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.

They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions. Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing. Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function. Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.

Just like human designers reuse workable body plans

Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals. What happened to them and where did birds come from? Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?

Wrong question. You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.

As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.

I have never once called Evolution a fact. If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.

When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?

I bet not.

In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.

Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?

I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?

You need to learn to read

I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.

That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????

You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.

Both are lies.

And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present. And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.

The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors. You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.

So are you denying these things too?

So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact. That is you argument is it not?

Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact



The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.

Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves. Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter

No cars rust over time.

There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.

And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.


After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both

Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...

phys.org

Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution

There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects

It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware

You read too much Sci fi.

That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows

And that makes it an inevitability>?

God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet. Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god

Sorry try again.

The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.

So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.

Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves

Really

So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?

No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth. So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.

So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything

But there is no proof such a being exists

Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet

No there is speculation and that's about it.

And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth

Genetic engineering would be faster

Not really since we would have to engineer organisms that could thrive in virtually zero atmosphere with zero water and have the ability to withstand the wild temperature swings on Mars as well as the solar radiation that is not deflected by an inherent planetary magnetic field as we have here on earth.

Tell me why do you think it would be so easy to do all that?

We do not have the will as a country a planet or collectively as human beings to undertake such a venture.

Again mars has an atmosphere and I see greenhouses with partial Martian conditions being used to develop new strains of life

But then I see computer errors before they happen too

Classified so do not bother

Do you know how much atmosphere Mars actually has? It's less than 1% of what the earth has. Therefore it is completely negligible.

 

[esalla]

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being. The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree. If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.

Define "fact."

Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out. Is god stupid or something

All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!

If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.

They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions. Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing. Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function. Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.

Just like human designers reuse workable body plans

Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals. What happened to them and where did birds come from? Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?

Wrong question. You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.

As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.

I have never once called Evolution a fact. If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.

When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?

I bet not.

In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.

Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?

I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?

You need to learn to read

I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.

That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????

You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.

Both are lies.

And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present. And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.

The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors. You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.

So are you denying these things too?

So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact. That is you argument is it not?

Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact



The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.

Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves. Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter

No cars rust over time.

There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.

And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.


After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both

Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...

phys.org

Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution

There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects

It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware

You read too much Sci fi.

That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows

And that makes it an inevitability>?

God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet. Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god

Sorry try again.

The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.

So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.

Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves

Really

So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?

No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth. So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.

So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything

But there is no proof such a being exists

Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet

No there is speculation and that's about it.

And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth

Genetic engineering would be faster

Not really since we would have to engineer organisms that could thrive in virtually zero atmosphere with zero water and have the ability to withstand the wild temperature swings on Mars as well as the solar radiation that is not deflected by an inherent planetary magnetic field as we have here on earth.

Tell me why do you think it would be so easy to do all that?

We do not have the will as a country a planet or collectively as human beings to undertake such a venture.

Again mars has an atmosphere and I see greenhouses with partial Martian conditions being used to develop new strains of life

But then I see computer errors before they happen too

Classified so do not bother

Do you know how much atmosphere Mars actually has? It's less than 1% of what the earth has. Therefore it is completely negligible.

Earth also once had no atmosphere

 

[Grumblenuts]

Before:

our moon has no atmosphere at all

After:

Earth also once had no atmosphere

Like having it both ways much?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Babbling, eh? Lol. First you assert,

You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate

Many here have pointed out why there's no longer anything for one to consider special about your precious "code." Scientists are creating it in labs today. RNA today, DNA soon. You stick your fingers in your ears and go,

No one knows {...}, perhaps god {...} or perhaps god {...} I merely point out that soup does not write advanced code.

Yes, it does. We do know that. No "god" required. Get over yourself.

Guy nuts I cant see what u post

If I need a laugh I will undo this

Talk about babbling

 

[Blues Man]

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being. The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree. If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.

Define "fact."

Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out. Is god stupid or something

All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!

If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.

They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions. Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing. Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function. Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.

Just like human designers reuse workable body plans

Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals. What happened to them and where did birds come from? Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?

Wrong question. You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.

As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.

I have never once called Evolution a fact. If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.

When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?

I bet not.

In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.

Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?

I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?

You need to learn to read

I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.

That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????

You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.

Both are lies.

And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present. And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.

The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors. You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.

So are you denying these things too?

So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact. That is you argument is it not?

Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact



The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.

Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves. Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter

No cars rust over time.

There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.

And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.


After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both

Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...

phys.org

Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution

There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects

It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware

You read too much Sci fi.

That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows

And that makes it an inevitability>?

God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet. Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god

Sorry try again.

The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.

So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.

Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves

Really

So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?

No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth. So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.

So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything

But there is no proof such a being exists

Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet

No there is speculation and that's about it.

And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth

Genetic engineering would be faster

Not really since we would have to engineer organisms that could thrive in virtually zero atmosphere with zero water and have the ability to withstand the wild temperature swings on Mars as well as the solar radiation that is not deflected by an inherent planetary magnetic field as we have here on earth.

Tell me why do you think it would be so easy to do all that?

We do not have the will as a country a planet or collectively as human beings to undertake such a venture.

Again mars has an atmosphere and I see greenhouses with partial Martian conditions being used to develop new strains of life

But then I see computer errors before they happen too

Classified so do not bother

Do you know how much atmosphere Mars actually has? It's less than 1% of what the earth has. Therefore it is completely negligible.

Earth also once had no atmosphere

But unlike Mars the Earth has an active planetary magnetic field produced by the motion molten nickel and iron in the core. it is this field that deflects the solar winds that would otherwise strip away our atmosphere.

Mars no longer has a planetary magnetic field because its core is now cold which is why its atmosphere is gone.

There is no way we can artificially produce a planetary magnetic field on Mars. And if we can't do that there is no way we can create an atmosphere on Mars that will last

 

[Grumblenuts]

Do you know how much atmosphere Mars actually has? It's less than 1% of what the earth has. Therefore it is completely negligible.

Earth also once had no atmosphere

the Moon had once possessed a relatively thick atmosphere for a period of 70 million years between 3 and 4 billion years ago. This atmosphere, sourced from gases ejected from lunar volcanic eruptions, was twice the thickness of that of present-day Mars. It has been theorized, in fact, that this ancient atmosphere could have supported life, though no evidence of life has been found.[10] The ancient lunar atmosphere was eventually stripped away by solar winds and dissipated into space.

Not to worry, been there, done that,

The atmosphere on board the ISS is similar to the Earth's.[184] Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.69 psi);[185] the same as at sea level on Earth. An Earth-like atmosphere offers benefits for crew comfort, and is much safer than a pure oxygen atmosphere, because of the increased risk of a fire such as that responsible for the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew.[186] Earth-like atmospheric conditions have been maintained on all Russian and Soviet spacecraft.

No actual need nor call for going to Mars, Venus, or the Moon; whether just to breathe on some outer space object, build greenhouses, nor to view people in a mirror.

US astronaut Chris Cassidy had gone out of the space station to replace the batteries when he lost his mirror. Cassidy's colleague Bob Behnken had accompanied him when the incident occurred. Chris Cassidy said losing the mirror was "a real bummer".

 

[Hollie]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

It's comical when the religious extremists use ''quotes'' from ID'iot creationist charlatans in a science thread.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.

Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).

Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.

Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.

 

[esalla]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

It's comical when the religious extremists use ''quotes'' from ID'iot creationist charlatans in a science thread.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.

Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).

Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.

Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.

Do you feel better now? What did you just achieve?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You first.

 

[esalla]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

It's comical when the religious extremists use ''quotes'' from ID'iot creationist charlatans in a science thread.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.

Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).

Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.

Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.

Behe is a Roman Catholic silly

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

To whom?

To the followers of the cult of evolution

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

The video I recently posted about the inner workings of a CELL proves this could never happen wit the birth and death of a million sons.

Not even the walking proteins, or any other part of a living cell could possibly create itself. Only a fool who HATES God, or the brainwashed zombies of the modern educational system could ever believe any COMPONENT of life could create itself without a CREATOR

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

Should be moved to the Rubber Room immediately. Does not belong in this section.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Should be moved to the Rubber Room immediately. Does not belong in this section.

So......you're demanding that I visit your abode????


Should I bring a box of cake?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So......you're demanding that I visit your abode????


Should I bring a box of cake?

You should visit a 6th grade science class and bring your entire collection of shut your idiot mouth and listen and learn.

 

[fncceo]

Only a fool who HATES God, or the brainwashed zombies

Zombies are biologically impossible... at least the Romero variety.

 

[Hollie]

The video I recently posted about the inner workings of a CELL proves this could never happen wit the birth and death of a million sons.

Not even the walking proteins, or any other part of a living cell could possibly create itself. Only a fool who HATES God, or the brainwashed zombies of the modern educational system could ever believe any COMPONENT of life could create itself without a CREATOR

"The gawds did it'', answers all questions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You should visit a 6th grade science class and bring your entire collection of shut your idiot mouth and listen and learn.

Always amusing......the same sort of post every time a government school grad is exposed to the truth and has no way to dispute it: they demand censorship.

 

[Hollie]

Always amusing......the same sort of post every time a government school grad is exposed to the truth and has no way to dispute it: they demand censorship.

Laughable how hyper-religious loons suggest charlatans at AIG or the Disco'tute represent science.

I guess the home skoolers are forever developmentally challenged.

 

[ReinyDays]

A sealed vessel of pure methane, given time, will become contaminated with ethane ... simple collisions ... thus the process of evolution begins ...

We have a hell of a lot of time to work with ... so the logic follows through ...