The Physics Professor Poses Darwinian Question to Students

[rightwinger]

Darwin's Puppets have run rampant, as they ALWAYS DO. They trot out the same tired arguments over and over again, feigning "science" and "intelligence."

1. "It's proven." (No, Darwinism is not.)
2. "Most scientists accept it." (Consensus is not science.)
3. "DNA similarities!" (Watermelon is 96% water. Did it evolve from clouds?"
4. "Science, science, science!" (Countless mathematicians, statisticians, computer experts, biologists, paleontologists, and biochemists find Darwin's Tautology utterly lacking as I have quoted dozens of times. Darwin's Puppets ignore scientists who don't follow their archaic and trivial tautology, viz., organisms survive because they are fit and they are fit because they survive.
Please, stop with the 160 year old nonsense.)

One of many examples of fraudulent "science" parroted for a century:

Haeckel’s drawings ostensibly demonstrating “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
They were challenged in 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer in Archiv für Anthropogenie immediately after their publication. Some biology texts published as late as 2001, such as one by Bruce Alberts, former head of the National Academy of Sciences, showed this fraud.

Famed Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote, for example: “It is now firmly established that ontogeny [development of the individual] does not repeat phylogeny [development of the race]”
In any case, Haeckel had a passion for promoting the recapitulation theory, which he termed “the fundamental biogenetic law.” And, as one writer has noted:
“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity’” (Bowden 1977, 128).
Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:
“I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm. 1977. Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, p. 128)

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

 

[Hollie]

Darwin's Puppets have run rampant, as they ALWAYS DO. They trot out the same tired arguments over and over again, feigning "science" and "intelligence."

1. "It's proven." (No, Darwinism is not.)
2. "Most scientists accept it." (Consensus is not science.)
3. "DNA similarities!" (Watermelon is 96% water. Did it evolve from clouds?"
4. "Science, science, science!" (Countless mathematicians, statisticians, computer experts, biologists, paleontologists, and biochemists find Darwin's Tautology utterly lacking as I have quoted dozens of times. Darwin's Puppets ignore scientists who don't follow their archaic and trivial tautology, viz., organisms survive because they are fit and they are fit because they survive.
Please, stop with the 160 year old nonsense.)

One of many examples of fraudulent "science" parroted for a century:

Haeckel’s drawings ostensibly demonstrating “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
They were challenged in 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer in Archiv für Anthropogenie immediately after their publication. Some biology texts published as late as 2001, such as one by Bruce Alberts, former head of the National Academy of Sciences, showed this fraud.

Famed Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote, for example: “It is now firmly established that ontogeny [development of the individual] does not repeat phylogeny [development of the race]”
In any case, Haeckel had a passion for promoting the recapitulation theory, which he termed “the fundamental biogenetic law.” And, as one writer has noted:
“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity’” (Bowden 1977, 128).
Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:
“I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm. 1977. Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, p. 128)

When Haeckel's fraud was exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.

What you cut and pasted confirms that.

"Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court.''

 

[progressive hunter]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

WRONG!!

evolution is a theory based on faith and god is based solely on faith,,

both require faith and are religions,,

 

[Hollie]

WRONG!!

evolution is a theory based on faith and god is based solely on faith,,

both require faith and are religions,,

Demand a refund of the money you spent at your madrassah.

 

[ChemEngineer]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. For instance:

On a molecular level, some of the strongest support for evolution lies in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of organisms. New techniques allow scientists to extract and replicate DNA sequences that can then be compared to sequences from other animals. Because DNA ultimately controls both morphological and behavioral features in organisms, similarities and differences among DNA sequences can clearly reveal the path of evolution.

I am curious to know what the alternative to evolution is. Did God do it? Is there an alternative scientific theory, and if so what might that be?

No code was ever created by random chance. DNA is a profoundly sophisticated code, which today we cannot begin to read and decipher. Which segments control synthesis of the various proteins? No clue. Which segments predispose owners to hereditary diseases? No clue.
Because we cannot explain DNA, does that mean it doesn't exist or function? Of course not.

Nothing in any branch of science, or philosophy, or logic, lays claim to the absolute need for an explanation of anything. You Darwinists scream relentlessly for some "alternative theory."
Science demands only that you reject any theory which fails. There is NEVER a need to wait for an "alternative theory" before rejecting one that is useless and worthless, as Darwinism clearly is.

THAT is science. THAT you have to reject because it doesn't fit with the narrative that has been hammered into your head.

 

[rightwinger]

WRONG!!

evolution is a theory based on faith and god is based solely on faith,,

both require faith and are religions,,

Wrong again Skippy

There is irrefutable biological, fossil, geological and DNA evidence that evolution has occurred. That makes evolution a FACT

There is NO EVIDENCE that God exists, only faith
That makes it, at best, a theory

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong again Skippy

There is irrefutable biological, fossil, geological and DNA evidence that evolution has occurred. That makes evolution a FACT

There is NO EVIDENCE that God exists, only faith
That makes it, at best, a theory

WRONG AGAIN!!!

I see a pattern developing,,,

 

[rightwinger]

There is NEVER a need to wait for an "alternative theory" before rejecting one that is useless and worthless, as Darwinism clearly is.

Darwin claimed that complex creatures evolved from simple creatures. That is an irrefutable FACT

 

[Hollie]

Nothing in any branch of science, or philosophy, or logic, lays claim to the absolute need for an explanation of anything. You Darwinists scream relentlessly for some "alternative theory."
Science demands only that you reject any theory which fails. There is NEVER a need to wait for an "alternative theory" before rejecting one that is useless and worthless, as Darwinism clearly is.

THAT is science. THAT you have to reject because it doesn't fit with the narrative that has been hammered into your head.

So... you're pleading ignorance is bliss.

Understand the eruption of laughter when a religioner attempts to lecture anyone on science.

 

[progressive hunter]

Darwin claimed that complex creatures evolved from simple creatures. That is an irrefutable FACT

then show me one time where it happened,,
I dont want to se where someone claimed it happen but actual visual proof,,,

 

[Hollie]

then show me one time where it happened,,
I dont want to se where someone claimed it happen but actual visual proof,,,

Could you possibly sit in on a 7th grade biology class? That's where you would have been introduced to biological evolution.

 

[rightwinger]

then show me one time where it happened,,
I dont want to se where someone claimed it happen but actual visual proof,,,

OK
I will show you rock strata that shows layers of simple creatures covered with layers of increasingly complex creatures.

Your turn

 

[progressive hunter]

OK
I will show you rock strata that shows layers of simple creatures covered with layers of increasingly complex creatures.

Your turn

so what youre going to do is dig up a rock and say this proves it,,

how about you do it with proof thats what happened instead of saying it happened,,

 

[rightwinger]

so what youre going to do is dig up a rock and say this proves it,,

how about you do it with proof thats what happened instead of saying it happened,,

Those layers of rock show what was happening when the rock was formed

Older layers of rock have just simple creatures. More recent layers include complex creatures

Your turn

 

[edthecynic]

got a link??

God told me.

 

[progressive hunter]

God told me.

you should get mental help for that,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Those layers of rock show what was happening when the rock was formed

Older layers of rock have just simple creatures. More recent layers include complex creatures

Your turn

NOOO!!
those layeers of rock mean something got buried a long time ago,,

what when and how are another story that cant be answered today,,

 

[rightwinger]

Physics Professor.

Well students, since you can’t show how Tesla car parts can evolve, that proves biological organisms can’t evolve

 

[Hollie]

NOOO!!
those layeers of rock mean something got buried a long time ago,,

what when and how are another story that cant be answered today,,

The answers to what, when and how have become more accurate and detailed in the last 150 years through, you know, science investigation and better testing methods.

Your madrassah wasn't real keen on science, right?

 

[rightwinger]

NOOO!!
those layeers of rock mean something got buried a long time ago,,

what when and how are another story that cant be answered today,,

Nothing was “buried”
Layers of mud formed into rock strata and subsequent layers contained increasingly complex creatures

Your turn