25 Pages of Quotes By Scientists Refuting Darwinism

[james bond]

Not all medicines use evolution related attributes to develope. VACCINES DO . But, all medicines approved by the FDA are tested not to affect you or the child of a oregnan5 woman. If it does , there are warnings. Evolution is dependent upon the dna passed from one
generation to another.

You said, "You don’t know shit about modern vaccines which use evolutionary related constructs to alter the immune system,"

I know what DNA or RNA does in vaccines. You stated, "Evolution is dependent upon the dna passed from one generation to another." So how does that relate to vaccines? Are the results of vaccines passed from one generation to another? How are they evolutionary related?

 

[scruffy]

Could you create an eyeball out of nothing? Have you ever seen nothing create anything? Silly boy.

You're being silly. And you don't know the science. There is no such thing as "nothing". Nothing doesn't exist, it's a figment of your imagination.

 

[Dagosa]

I know what DNA or RNA does in vaccines.

Then why are you asking me ? It has the same function in almost all living organisms.,

 

[abu afak]

Could you create an eyeball out of nothing? Have you ever seen nothing create anything? Silly boy.

You fabricated a god out of nothing.
Many groups say they have created different ones, but there is no Evidence any has.
`

 

[SaxonJackson]

You fabricated a god out of nothing.
Many groups say they have created different ones, but there is no Evidence any has.
`

Your faith that no God exists is stellar.

 

[abu afak]

Your faith that no God exists is stellar.

I said there was "No evidence." That's a Fact, Not Faith.
`

 

[SaxonJackson]

I said there was "No evidence." That's a Fact, Not Faith.
`

You have faith that there's no evidence. But the evidence surrounds you.

 

[abu afak]

You have faith that there's no evidence. But the evidence surrounds you.

What you call 'Evidence' is FAITH and could also be called 'a rock.' (or a 'hill' or a 'green bean')
LOL
There is No Evidence of your god that couldn't be claimed as Evidence of ANYTHING else or ANY OTHER God.
`

 

[SaxonJackson]

What you call 'Evidence' is FAITH and could also be called 'a rock.' (or a 'hill' or a 'green bean')
LOL
There is No Evidence of your god that couldn't be claimed as Evidence of ANYTHING else or ANY OTHER God.
`

When you look at a Corvette engine ... it's clear that all the intricate parts and the manner in which they go together are designed. They didn't fall into place by accident. So we all agree that a Corvette is the product of an intelligent mind and an intelligent designer. Far more intricate than a Corvette engine is the human eye. I'll let you draw your own conclusion. If you're not able to see that such a design is a product of an intelligent Designer, then you're probably never going to accept the "evidence" of Intelligent Design.

 

[Crick]

Moderator tells me I must edit the opening post but provides no link or method by which I can edit it as requested. Let's cooperate, shall we? The thoughts of pages and pages of scientists confirm my observations and scientific opinions. That should be glaringly obvious.

How primitive Darwinists can cling to "A>B>C>D" nonsense prattled by bitter atheists like Richard Dawkins escapes me. He can't even have his ugly teeth fixed with all his millions earned by selling books full of lies.

You seem to be avoiding the point that the number of scientists who accept evolutionary theory absolutely dwarfs the number who actually reject it.

 

[Crick]

When you look at a Corvette engine ... it's clear that all the intricate parts and the manner in which they go together are designed. They didn't fall into place by accident. So we all agree that a Corvette is the product of an intelligent mind and an intelligent designer. Far more intricate than a Corvette engine is the human eye. I'll let you draw your own conclusion. If you're not able to see that such a design is a product of an intelligent Designer, then you're probably never going to accept the "evidence" of Intelligent Design.

The fossil record shows the clear evolutionary development of the eye. The same is true for every ID argument I have ever read.

 

[SaxonJackson]

The fossil record shows the clear evolutionary development of the eye. The same is true for every ID argument I have ever read.

Show me a fossil of an eye. Your opinion is FAR from fact. You'll have to do better. Pictures please.

 

[SaxonJackson]

You seem to be avoiding the point that the number of scientists who accept evolutionary theory absolutely dwarfs the number who actually reject it.

The number of wolves who want to eat a sheep far outpaces the number of wolves who don't.

 

[abu afak]

When you look at a Corvette engine ... it's clear that all the intricate parts and the manner in which they go together are designed. They didn't fall into place by accident. So we all agree that a Corvette is the product of an intelligent mind and an intelligent designer. Far more intricate than a Corvette engine is the human eye. I'll let you draw your own conclusion. If you're not able to see that such a design is a product of an intelligent Designer, then you're probably never going to accept the "evidence" of Intelligent Design.

Junkyard tornado​

The junkyard tornado, also known as Hoyle's Fallacy, is an argument used to deride the probability of abiogenesis as comparable to "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747."[1][2][3] It was used originally by English astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915–2001), who applied statistical analysis to the origin of life, but similar observations predate Hoyle and have been found all the way back to Darwin's time,[1] and indeed to Cicero in classical times.[4] While Hoyle himself was an atheist, the argument has since become a mainstay in the rejection of evolution by religious groups.

This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists.

From the modern evolutionary standpoint, while the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbably remote, evolution proceeds in many smaller stages, each driven by natural selection rather than by chance, over a long period of time.
The transition as a whole is plausible, as each step improves survivability; the Boeing 747 was not designed in a single unlikely burst of creativity, just as modern lifeforms were not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado posits."..."

Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

 

[abu afak]

Show me a fossil of an eye. Your opinion is FAR from fact. You'll have to do better. Pictures please.

First, Eye is soft Tissue. Fossils are for the most part Bone or Bone impression that survive.
Your breathtaking Ignorance is Showing... again.

Second
Have a party:
It was a Lonnnng process starting with just ability to sense light.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you truly want Info, it's easy to find it. You can't just stick to the single Book they Shoved WAY up your ass when you were 7 years old.

`

 

[Crick]

Show me a fossil of an eye. Your opinion is FAR from fact. You'll have to do better. Pictures please.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Junkyard tornado​

The junkyard tornado, also known as Hoyle's Fallacy, is an argument used to deride the probability of abiogenesis as comparable to "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747."[1][2][3] It was used originally by English astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915–2001), who applied statistical analysis to the origin of life, but similar observations predate Hoyle and have been found all the way back to Darwin's time,[1] and indeed to Cicero in classical times.[4] While Hoyle himself was an atheist, the argument has since become a mainstay in the rejection of evolution by religious groups.

This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists.

From the modern evolutionary standpoint, while the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbably remote, evolution proceeds in many smaller stages, each driven by natural selection rather than by chance, over a long period of time.
The transition as a whole is plausible, as each step improves survivability; the Boeing 747 was not designed in a single unlikely burst of creativity, just as modern lifeforms were not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado posits."..."

Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

I appreciate your cut and paste, but Wikipedia is as trustworthy as Biden is. That's why I never use it as a reference. The Bible has been around a lot longer and has been a bestseller for centuries. I think I'll stick with something more tried and true.

 

[abu afak]

I appreciate your cut and paste, but Wikipedia is as trustworthy as Biden is. That's why I never use it as a reference. The Bible has been around a lot longer and has been a bestseller for centuries. I think I'll stick with something more tried and true.

You 100% Trust a 1700 yr old Cherry-picked ALTERED FABLE/four from of scores of Gospels (that don't even mention dinosaurs) but you don't like heavily Footnoted (with Scientific studies) Wikipedia?
Genesis doesn't even have Kweation or it's order right.

You're an Incurable member of the Planets biggest CULT which has NO EVIDENCE from Any source.

You lost at every Turn/Every part of this debate you Putrid Pilgrim.

Smart, less doctrinaire believers (80+ IQ) Understand you Cannot prove or even Hard Evidence a god, and that their belief is FAITH. So that there can't be any winning that debate.
So they are satisfied with that thought.
You are just plain Indoctrinated and Stupid.

`

 

[SaxonJackson]

You 100% Trust a 1700 yr old Cherry-picked ALTERED FABLE/four from of scores of Gospels (that don't even mention dinosaurs) but you don't like heavily Footnoted (with Scientific studies) Wikipedia?
Genesis doesn't even have Kweation or it's order right.

You're an Incurable member of the Planets biggest CULT which has NO EVIDENCE from Any source.

You lost at every Turn/Every part of this debate you Putrid Pilgrim.

Smart, less doctrinaire believers (80+ IQ) Understand you Cannot prove or even Hard Evidence a god, and that their belief is FAITH. So that there can't be any winning that debate.
So they are satisfied with that thought.
You are just plain Indoctrinated and Stupid.

`

Yes! I 100% trust God's Word which is timeless since He's timeless.

Have you heard of cause and effect. For every effect ... there was a cause. But there can be only ONE first cause. The first cause was uncaused else it would not be the first cause but, rather, the second cause. So the first cause is eternal. The first Cause, in my opinion, is God (our Intelligent Designer).

 

[abu afak]

Yes! I 100% trust God's Word which is timeless since He's timeless.

There is NO "god" in evidence.
You failed.

Have you heard of cause and effect. For every effect ... there was a cause. But there can be only ONE first cause. The first cause was uncaused else it would not be the first cause but, rather, the second cause. So the first cause is eternal. The first Cause, in my opinion, is God (our Intelligent Designer).

"In your opinion"
and again, that admits there is No Evidence.

What you are doing is called "God of the Gaps".... that also spawned the sun, Lightening, fertility 10,000 other gods.
"I don't know so it must be god."

And of course even if that logic was accepted there is the question of Which/Witch god since one thing we DO know is at least 75% of the planet is wrong even if one stepped in it.

Wasting lots of time.
It IS an IQ thing to realize you can't prove a god with logic. Unwinnable.
`