Blowing Up Darwin

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why are you ascribing your religious extremism to others?

I didn't, I said Richard Dawkins said he believes there might be a way to detect if living material had been designed, go an reread my post.

 

[Hollie]

I didn't, I said Richard Dawkins said he believes there might be a way to detect if living material had been designed, go an reread my post.

Let Dawkins provide a testable method to detect the supernatural. You religious quacks have failed to do that.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Let Dawkins provide a testable method to detect the supernatural. You religious quacks have failed to do that.

You tried to ignore this challenge - I wonder why, did you really think I wouldn't notice?

Prove that nature is natural, can you? of course you cannot and won't even try, it's just another dogmatic belief you hold as part of your religious devotion to scientism.

 

[Hollie]

You tried to ignore this challenge - I wonder why, did you really think I wouldn't notice?

View attachment 1055607

Prove that nature is natural, can you? of course you cannot and won't even try, it's just another dogmatic belief you hold as part of your religious devotion to scientism.

You acknowledge the natural world is natural by your very statement.

Prove your many gods. With that done, prove your many gods have had any involvement with the natural world.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nothing "scientific" can take place until laws of physics exist. So we can be certain that the laws of physics cannot have arisen through scientific processes. The Big Bang was the supernatural act of creation and was not caused by laws. The Big Bang was caused by a supernatural non-deterministic "will" that some of us call "God". At that instant the material universe and the laws that govern it's state, came into existence and some of us call that "creation".

Any attempt to "explain" the presence of laws by recourse to laws, fails, it leads to paradoxes and in philosophy and logic we know that paradoxes arise through faulty reasoning and false assumptions, this is why atheism is the height of intellectual stupidity and willful ignorance.

As Paul wrote 2,000 years ago

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

There it is, God and the creation are plain to those who can see and reason honestly, the rest of you have no excuse, it is willful ignorance and blind devotion to scientism that has made you stumble. We can understand that God created the universe because it's very existence demonstrates that - but if you refuse to think, then you will forever run around in hopeless circles as the atheists in this thread show us, all too well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're clueles. Biological evolution has been proven by research in the field of medical science.

Science and evolution - PMC

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory. It has endured daily and rigorous testing, and it stands as the unifying theory in biology (Rutledge and Warden, 2000)."

Now would be a good time to prove your bibles and the flat earth.

"well-supported scientific theory."


Yet you couldn't find and provide any such support.

That's pretty dispositive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tell us more about the data presented by preacher Prager for his flat earth science.

Us? You mean you, an evil gnome.


1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”


AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, Einstein's theory of general relativity and the observation of redshift in distant galaxies led to the discovery of the Big Bang theor



Schooled you again, huh?

Say thank you.

 

[Hollie]

You tried to ignore this challenge - I wonder why, did you really think I wouldn't notice?

View attachment 1055607

Prove that nature is natural, can you? of course you cannot and won't even try, it's just another dogmatic belief you hold as part of your religious devotion to scientism.

Tell us about the unnatural world you insist is real and extant.

Nothing "scientific" can take place until laws of physics exist. So we know that the laws of physics cannot have arisen through scientific processes. The Big Bang was the supernatural act of creation and was not caused by laws. The Big Bang was caused by a supernatural non-deterministic "will" that some of us call "God". At that instant the material universe and the laws that govern it's state, came into existence and some of us call that "creation".

Who is the cabal of hyer-religions religious loons you represent with the "we" admonition. You have to make a rational argument for your many gods before you can represent that they invented supernatural laws of physics.

You hyper-religious loons have no sense of a consistent flow of ideas or what constitutes a rational argument.

 

[Hollie]

Us? You mean you, an evil gnome.


1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”


AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, Einstein's theory of general relativity and the observation of redshift in distant galaxies led to the discovery of the Big Bang theor



Schooled you again, huh?

Say thank you.

Prager is another of your false gods.

"Because Prager says" is not a claim you should expect anyone else to mindlessly accept as you mindlessly do.

What does Jimmy Swaggert say? He is Prager's god.

 

[Hollie]

Which of these is you sweetheart?
View attachment 1055615



View attachment 1055617

Gender confusion seems to be at the root of your confusion, but we're here to help so don't hesitate to ask us for help.

So, you admit you're a gender confused tranny.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So, you admit you're a gender confused tranny.

There's no need to get angry and lash out Hollie, you are not to blame for the decisions of your parents but you can change your name if you want to, that's allowed in the United States.

 

[Hollie]

Us? You mean you, an evil gnome.


1. In fact, science has come more in line with the Bible. Dennis Prager writes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”


AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, Einstein's theory of general relativity and the observation of redshift in distant galaxies led to the discovery of the Big Bang theor



Schooled you again, huh?

Say thank you.

It seems so many of the frauds and charlatans you hold as gods are just hyper-religious loons with no credibility.

Consider yourself schooled.

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

Dennis Prager is a fundie rightwing radio host, pseudo-intellectual, and regular contributor to Townhall, where he tries to argue that the United States is a Christian nation and that liberals are bad. As opposed to some radio hosts Prager seems to know something about history and religion, but mixes it readily with bizarre untruths, Jonanism, nonsense, and psychological projection, for instance with regard to his claim that ‘the Left’ allows their ‘feelings’ to get in the way of policy; Prager himself would of course never do that. A fine example of Prager’s general acumen is displayed in this rant, where he argues that The Left is hateful. Why? Because they call right-wingers … hateful, and rightwingers don’t call leftists hateful. That’s the premise, and Prager is evidently unaware of the dialectical position he has put himself in. Hilarity ensues.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let’s get to the definitive proof that Darwin is incorrect, advanced by a Leftist political view, not science, and the Bible reflects what is known, scientifically, today.



Darwin’s view to explain the multiplicity of life on earth, requires a series of small changes in organisms which mount up, gradually, until they become a different organism. He expected, and we should, too, the fossil record to contain organism a, and a series of intermittent organisms showing changes in organism a, until it becomes a separate species, organism b.





The Bible posits a full array of life as authorized by a being known as God. No intermediates necessary. Spontaneous existence of new species.



Now, let’s check.




1. Evolutionary biologist and supporter of the theory, Stephen Gould admits same: "Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phyla had appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

.


2. Darwin himself admitted that:

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

3. “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”



4. So Charles Darwin named the Litmus Test for his theory: we should see if new species arise gradually, or spontaneously. If the former, he's a winner....but if the latter....well...


5. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.



6. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.


7. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

 

[Hollie]

Let’s get to the definitive proof that Darwin is incorrect, advanced by a Leftist political view, not science, and the Bible reflects what is known, scientifically, today.



Darwin’s view to explain the multiplicity of life on earth, requires a series of small changes in organisms which mount up, gradually, until they become a different organism. He expected, and we should, too, the fossil record to contain organism a, and a series of intermittent organisms showing changes in organism a, until it becomes a separate species, organism b.





The Bible posits a full array of life as authorized by a being known as God. No intermediates necessary. Spontaneous existence of new species.



Now, let’s check.




1. Evolutionary biologist and supporter of the theory, Stephen Gould admits same: "Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phyla had appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

.


2. Darwin himself admitted that:

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

3. “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”



4. So Charles Darwin named the Litmus Test for his theory: we should see if new species arise gradually, or spontaneously. If the former, he's a winner....but if the latter....well...


5. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.



6. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.


7. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

A cavalcade of your pointless "quote mining"

What is "sudden" about geologic time frames?

I know you dont understand but when you cut and paste from ID'iot creationer websites you become an accomplice to their fraud and ignorance.

Yet another of your frequent humiliations.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How Dawkins trapped himself and admitted he is not a Darwinist, this is the fate that awaits all devotees of scientism:

 

[Hollie]

Let’s get to the definitive proof that Darwin is incorrect, advanced by a Leftist political view, not science, and the Bible reflects what is known, scientifically, today.



Darwin’s view to explain the multiplicity of life on earth, requires a series of small changes in organisms which mount up, gradually, until they become a different organism. He expected, and we should, too, the fossil record to contain organism a, and a series of intermittent organisms showing changes in organism a, until it becomes a separate species, organism b.





The Bible posits a full array of life as authorized by a being known as God. No intermediates necessary. Spontaneous existence of new species.



Now, let’s check.




1. Evolutionary biologist and supporter of the theory, Stephen Gould admits same: "Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phyla had appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

.


2. Darwin himself admitted that:

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

3. “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”



4. So Charles Darwin named the Litmus Test for his theory: we should see if new species arise gradually, or spontaneously. If the former, he's a winner....but if the latter....well...


5. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.



6. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.


7. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

When did you polytheistic gods become "beings"? Why are your polytheistic gods dismissed as frauds per the existence of all the gods who preceded your gods?

 

[abu afak]

Let’s get to the definitive proof that Darwin is incorrect, advanced by a Leftist political view, not science, and the Bible reflects what is known, scientifically, today.



Darwin’s view to explain the multiplicity of life on earth, requires a series of small changes in organisms which mount up, gradually, until they become a different organism. He expected, and we should, too, the fossil record to contain organism a, and a series of intermittent organisms showing changes in organism a, until it becomes a separate species, organism b.





The Bible posits a full array of life as authorized by a being known as God. No intermediates necessary. Spontaneous existence of new species.



Now, let’s check.




1. Evolutionary biologist and supporter of the theory, Stephen Gould admits same: "Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phyla had appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

.


2. Darwin himself admitted that:

"THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

3. “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”



4. So Charles Darwin named the Litmus Test for his theory: we should see if new species arise gradually, or spontaneously. If the former, he's a winner....but if the latter....well...


5. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.



6. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.


7. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

PLAGIARIZED and QUOTE MINED FROM CREATIONIST WEBSITE LIKE 70% of JeHOvachic's posts/OPs

Her Retarded 3, 4, 5 line spacing for more attention.

A proselytizing Billboard with zero science.
`
`

 

[Hollie]

How Dawkins trapped himself and admitted he is not a Darwinist, this is the fate that awaits all devotees of scientism:

Using youtube to promote your silly conspiracy theories?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I doubt any atheist here has ever actually designed anything. I have, I've been designing machines of some form or another for over forty years and it's my full time job today. I design software, algorithms for manipulating and analyzing data sometimes abstruse data like written programming languages, parsers and interpreters and translators.

So I'd like to know how people who do not design things claim to be able to talk about design and what it is, what it can do and so on.

They are usually trumped up pop-science fans who know close to jack-shit about the subject yet expect to be treated as somehow being authoritative.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Using youtube to promote your silly conspiracy theories?

Very few people visit this thread, so I would never use it to promote anything.