25 Pages of Quotes By Scientists Refuting Darwinism

I don't think they are lying so much as they are in an echo chamber that is good at filtering out unwanted noise. Any facts that might contradict their ideology would be considered 'noise' and be filtered out of course. Much like putting voices like mine (and yours?) on ignore makes for a much more satisfying experience that serves to reinforce the correctness of their ideology.
Oh, they knowingly lie about themselves, their knowledge and qualifications. Really, they are convinced that “ common sense” alone is more valuable than education.

If the echo chamber is fraught with lies, repeating it is lying.
 
Oh, they knowingly lie about themselves, their knowledge and qualifications. Really, they are convinced that “ common sense” alone is more valuable than education.

If the echo chamber is fraught with lies, repeating it is lying.
A case of ideology trumping reality. IMHO
 
A case of ideology trumping reality. IMHO
Only if the ideology evolves around making up shit and flat denying facts. It started with Trump having the biggest inauguration ever, and has never stopped since. Like all fascist wannabes, lies become so common, they are actually argued as acceptable alternatives., .
 
Darwinian theory starts with life already formed and reproducing, with no explanation of how it go here. That is "special creation" every bit as much as that espoused by Creationists and Intelligent designers.

Wrong.
What Darwin proved is that protein chains always form spontaneously, so life is impossible to prevent.

In contrast, "special creation" explains nothing because it just defers to another god that then itself has absolutely no explanation as to where it came from.
 
Wrong.
What Darwin proved is that protein chains always form spontaneously, so life is impossible to prevent.
What an interesting claim.

Do you have any evidence that "Darwin proved" that?
In contrast, "special creation" explains nothing because it just defers to another god that then itself has absolutely no explanation as to where it came from.
That's why creationism is really no better that Darwinism combined with abiogenesis. Theories with a God, or a Godlike designer merely add a historic step before life began, but they cannot explain the origin of that Godlike being.

Still, the apparant design noted by Darwin is evidence of a designer, regardless whether we know anything at all about the nature of that designer. It is evidence that could be refuted, which is what Darwin attempted to do. Not successfully, since his system is unworkable.

But, failure to fully explain things is to be expected, when we seek to understand what happened Billions of year ago. Explanations of the origin of life, or the formation of species will always be natural history rather than science.
 
Wrong.
What Darwin proved is that protein chains always form spontaneously, so life is impossible to prevent.

In contrast, "special creation" explains nothing because it just defers to another god that then itself has absolutely no explanation as to where it came from.
"Protein chains, also known as polypeptides, are formed by linking amino acids together through peptide bonds in a process called protein synthesis. This involves two main steps: transcription, where DNA is converted into messenger RNA (mRNA), and translation, where the mRNA is read by ribosomes to assemble the amino acids into a chain."
Where do polypeptides come from? How do amino acids form polypeptides? Why do they do this? You're thinking is very shallow. I could give you all the ingredients but you will NEVER make life. Darwin only discovered the machinations of already living entities.
 
Anyone who thinks a mediocre student of the nineteenth century has something to teach us is naive and uninformed.


"If anyone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox

He has a beautiful lecture on YouTube titled "A Matter of Gravity."

There is also a lovely science lesson at https://2001principle.net
 
Back
Top Bottom