25 Pages of Quotes By Scientists Refuting Darwinism

[Dagosa]

Your faith that no God exists is stellar.

You’re mistaken in saying, because no evidence there is not a god is evidence there is one. It’s a foolish idea that if used as reasoning in every other facet of life, can get you in trouble or worse, killed.

 

[Dagosa]

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

A good friend who is an ex priest and golf buddy but still a true believer said that the evidence of God is all around us. The beautiful yellow hue of a sunset and Mozart are ample examples of God’s presence.
To which I replied, “my favorite color is blue and I prefer country music . You’ll have to do better.“

He said nothing and we moved in to the next hole. That’s not evidence.

 

[Crick]

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).

If every effect has to have a cause, there can be no first cause or first effect.

 

[Crick]

I provided fossils of eyes as you requested but you have not responded.

 

[ActionJackson]

If every effect has to have a cause, there can be no first cause or first effect.

We know for certain that there are effects. I throw sand in your eye ... you produce tears and suffer from pain and discomfort. Effect? Your discomfort. Cause? Me throwing sand. Go backwards in time, and there was a cause for every effect.

But you and the other atheists or non-believers would have me believe the following:

1) Billions and billions and billions and billions of years ago ... there was nothing. A complete and total void of pure nothingness.
2) Then **poof** for no apparent reason ... gases just showed up out of nowhere. Pure chance.
3) More billions of years go by when all of a sudden **poof** matter formed for no apparent reason. It just showed up by pure chance.
4) More billions and billions of years go by (and you guessed it) **poof** goo formed on this matter that was floating around in voidsville.
5) A few more billions of years go by when, **poof** some a single-celled form of life just appeared for no apparent reason. Just by pure happenstance.
6) We still aren't sure if a food source "poofed** into existence before the life form **poofed** into existed or if the food source **poofed* as an afterthought.
7) Now this brand new life form was somehow able to reproduce even though it's sexual partner had not **poofed** yet. That is, unless male and female life forms **poofed** into existence simultaneously. I'll leave that conundrum to the experts who "KNOW" a lot more about those things than mere, common men.
8) The new life forms also had no eyesight. But after somehow surviving on the food source that **poof** came into existence ... it somehow formed an early version of an eye. It couldn't see yet, but billions and billions of year would surely solve that problem. And **poof** time did exactly that. The life form formed eyes by some non-miracle.

One MUST have a ton of faith to believe that everything we see in the universe occurred by a series of billions of mistakes, happenstances, and **poofs**.

 

[Dagosa]

We know for certain that there are effects. I throw sand in your eye ... you produce tears and suffer from pain and discomfort. Effect? Your discomfort. Cause? Me throwing sand. Go backwards in time, and there was a cause for every effect.

But you and the other atheists or non-believers would have me believe the following:

1) Billions and billions and billions and billions of years ago ... there was nothing. A complete and total void of pure nothingness.
2) Then **poof** for no apparent reason ... gases just showed up out of nowhere. Pure chance.
3) More billions of years go by when all of a sudden **poof** matter formed for no apparent reason. It just showed up by pure chance.
4) More billions and billions of years go by (and you guessed it) **poof** goo formed on this matter that was floating around in voidsville.
5) A few more billions of years go by when, **poof** some a single-celled form of life just appeared for no apparent reason. Just by pure happenstance.
6) We still aren't sure if a food source "poofed** into existence before the life form **poofed** into existed or if the food source **poofed* as an afterthought.
7) Now this brand new life form was somehow able to reproduce even though it's sexual partner had not **poofed** yet. That is, unless male and female life forms **poofed** into existence simultaneously. I'll leave that conundrum to the experts who "KNOW" a lot more about those things than mere, common men.
8) The new life forms also had no eyesight. But after somehow surviving on the food source that **poof** came into existence ... it somehow formed an early version of an eye. It couldn't see yet, but billions and billions of year would surely solve that problem. And **poof** time did exactly that. The life form formed eyes by some non-miracle.

One MUST have a ton of faith to believe that everything we see in the universe occurred by a series of billions of mistakes, happenstances, and **poofs**.

Naw, we just don’t want you to make up shit. You’re assuming we have a god simply because you were asleep during science and math class….You throw the word billions around like you really don’t have a clue.
Man is an insignificant part of the earth as an inhabitant given he’s occupied it far less then .oo1 of the time.
If there is a god and we are in his image, he wasted an effin lot of time doing absolutely nothing but play Russian roulette with all the other species that came before us.

 

[ActionJackson]

Naw, we just don’t want you to make up shit. You’re assuming we have a god simply because you were asleep during science and math class….You throw the word billions around like you really don’t have a clue.
Man is an insignificant part of the earth as an inhabitant given he’s occupied it far less then .oo1 of the time.
If there is a god and we are in his image, he wasted an effin lot of time doing absolutely nothing but play Russian roulette with all the other species that came before us.

I was an A student in both math and science. But in my day ... I wasn't being fed a line of bullshit about evolution.

But, as suspected, you didn't address the "nothing-created-everything-as-a-result-of-billions-of-mistakes" scenario. Is that because you don't really have any viable answers?

 

[Kruska]

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God.

You forgot about these 8.4 foot tall Aliens, that dropped funny seeds into our rivers.
BTW: who created God? I mean who are his Mama and Papa?

 

[ChemEngineer]

You forgot about these 8.4 foot tall Aliens, that dropped funny seeds into our rivers.
BTW: who created God? I mean who are his Mama and Papa?

You have listened to Richard Dawkins far too long. You borrowed his petty line which he thinks is clever.
Professor John Lennox, Dawkins' colleague at Oxford, has a video on Leftist YouTube titled "A Matter of Gravity."
You would do well to listen to it. Lennox says "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?"

Just so.

 

[Kruska]

You have listened to Richard Dawkins far too long. You borrowed his petty line which he thinks is clever.
Professor John Lennox, Dawkins' colleague at Oxford, has a video on Leftist YouTube titled "A Matter of Gravity."
You would do well to listen to it. Lennox says "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?"

Silly and unfounded propaganda by religious impeded folks - no scientific proof what soever - only BELIEFS

 

[Dagosa]

was an A student in both math and science. But in my day ... I wasn't being fed a line of bullshit about evolution.

So did your mother gave you an A, BFD. You must be really old. It starTed being taught well in the 1920s.

But, as suspected, you didn't address the "nothing-created-everything-as-a-result-of-billions-of-mistakes" scenario. Is that because you don't really have any viable answers?

The intelligence in science is illustrated by saying , “somethings we don’t know for sure.” Instead of making up shit and saying , “oh it must be the ghost in the sky “.

Not having a “viable answer for everything” is a far cry from flat out, making up shit.

 

[ActionJackson]

So did your mother gave you an A, BFD. You must be really old. It starTed being taught well in the 1920s.

The intelligence in science is illustrated by saying , “somethings we don’t know for sure.” Instead of making up shit and saying , “oh it must be the ghost in the sky “.

Not having a “viable answer for everything” is a far cry from flat out, making up shit.

And these folks "know" that everything **poofed** out of nothing for no particular reason. Pllleeeaaassseee. LOL It may be their best guess but they "know" nothing. They've surmised, postulated, guessed, hypothesized, and fantasized but they can't really explain how highly complex systems just fell into place by PURE CHANCE.

 

[Dagosa]

And these folks "know" that everything **poofed** out of nothing for no particular reason. Pllleeeaaassseee. LOL It may be their best guess but they "know" nothing. They've surmised, postulated, guessed, hypothesized, and fantasized but they can't really explain how highly complex systems just fell into place by PURE CHANCE.

And your point is what ? You don’t have a clue how science adds understanding to an idea ? While religion makes a false declaration of “this is how things are”.
Sorry, I’ll follow the evidence not some POS who makes a living making up shit. Faith is an acknowledgement that there is no evidence.

 

[ActionJackson]

And your point is what ? You don’t have a clue how science adds understanding to an idea ? While religion makes a false declaration of “this is how things are”.
Sorry, I’ll follow the evidence not some POS who makes a living make up shit. Faith is an acknowledgement that there is no evidence.

Considering the fact that you haven't even once attempted to use science to counter my earlier/posted synopsis suggests that you don't know as much about "science" as you pretend to.

 

[Dagosa]

Considering the fact that you haven't even once attempted to use science to counter my earlier/posted synopsis suggests that you don't know as much about "science" as you pretend to.

I said what I said. Im not getting into a debate with some one who believes in the tooth fairy.

 

[abu afak]

Considering the fact that you haven't even once attempted to use science to counter my earlier/posted synopsis suggests that you don't know as much about "science" as you pretend to.

There is No science in the god debate.
There is No data, No evidence, just FAITH.
Science has nothing to say about a god on either side.
`

 

[ActionJackson]

There is No science in the god debate.
There is No data, No evidence, just FAITH.
Science has nothing to say about a god on either side.
`

Then prove, scientifically, that NOTHING gave way to EVERYTHING. No guesses. Proof.

 

[abu afak]

Then prove, scientifically, that NOTHING gave way to EVERYTHING. No guesses. Proof.

Your Next Fallacy is ... Shifting the Burden.
I have No burden.
You are making the Positive claim of a god with not only no "proof" but NO Evidence.
Not knowing how anything started.... is... NOT KNOWING.. until and unless we do.

Assuming a god (of the Gaps) because you did not know how something (like fire) started and then telling me I have to "Prove" how it happened or you're right is NOT logical; and may turn out like ALL the other 100,000 god assumptions we NOW know weren't a god that have proven false.
I can say we don't know/know Yet.
While you Choose 'Goddidit,' another fallacy.

I can't "prove" (a negative) there is no god and do NOT have to.
And YOU can't "prove" I'm not god!!!
Ho Hum.

You don't have the simple logic or IQ for this.

 

[ActionJackson]

Your Next Fallacy is ... Shifting the Burden.
I have No burden.
You are making the Positive claim of a god with not only no "proof" but NO Evidence.
Not knowing how anything started.... is... NOT KNOWING.. until and unless we do.

Assuming a god (of the Gaps) because you did not know how something (like fire) started and then telling me I have to "Prove" how it happened or you're right is NOT logical; and may turn out like ALL the other 100,000 god assumptions we NOW know weren't a god that have proven false.
I can say we don't know/know Yet.
While you Choose 'Goddidit,' another fallacy.

I can't "prove" (a negative) there is no god and do NOT have to.
And YOU can't "prove" I'm not god!!!
Ho Hum.

You don't have the simple logic or IQ for this.

You DO have a burden. Rejecting Christianity, the Bible, and the fact of Creation doesn't mean that your conclusions are suddenly accurate. I don't have a burden in that I already believe what I believe. I'm at peace and confident in my knowledge. If you would have me believe something else ... then the burden is on you. I already know that I won't be changing your mind so I'm a free man.

But regardless of all the above ... you MUST possess lots of faith to believe that NOTHING created EVERYTHING. Millions if not trillions of mini-miracles had to have occurred over time for NOTHING to have produced intricate designs.

And ... if you do "not know" how things got started, then you cannot say that God didn't have anything to do with it. That's an assumption but not a fact.

 

[abu afak]

RationalWiki

God of the gaps

God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke Goddidit (or a variant) in order to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. This concept resembles what systems theorists[1] refer to as an...

rationalwiki.org

""God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke Goddidit (or a variant) in order to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. This concept resembles what systems theorists[1] refer to as an "explanatory principle".[2]

"God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information.[3]

Invoking a God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.""...."

`