Darwin destroyed in new book

[Hollie]

DARWIN'S BLUFF

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend​

The Myth was not the man. A new book
shows this in Darwin’s own words.

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend – CEH

crev.info

View attachment 932377

Religious extremists tend to cut and paste this kind of nonsense, “Darwin destroyed”, but always fail to offer anything more than nonsense authored by other religious extremists.

 

[Libby von H]

Religious extremists tend to cut and paste this kind of nonsense, “Darwin destroyed”, but always fail to offer anything more than nonsense authored by other religious extremists.

Which a real scientist (hence not you) could rationally answer easily (hence not you)
DO you know the history of evolution?

MENDEL alone

 

[Hollie]

Which a real scientist (hence not you) could rationally answer easily (hence not you)
DO you know the history of evolution?

MENDEL alone
View attachment 935974

Robert Shedinger, he author of this book, you cited to open the thread knows nothing of evolutionary biology. He is a professor of religion at Luther College. For some reason he decided to take it upon himself to write on the subject of biology, a subject he knows nothing of. He has a profound lack of interest in actual biology and a strong ideological commitment to ID'iot Creationism.

This is all stereotypical behavior for religious extremists.

 

[Libby von H]

Robert Shedinger, he author of this book, you cited to open the thread knows nothing of evolutionary biology. He is a professor of religion at Luther College. For some reason he decided to take it upon himself to write on the subject of biology, a subject he knows nothing of. He has a profound lack of interest in actual biology and a strong ideological commitment to ID'iot Creationism.

This is all stereotypical behavior for religious extremists.

Wrong again. it was around 1900 that the age-old custom of intellectual writing aimed at the common man stopped.,
You are one of those idiot fools who won't accept that a non-PhD can ever say anything. Why don't you start up that idiot Dr Jill Biden rap of yours. Entertain us

 

[Hollie]

Wrong again. it was around 1900 that the age-old custom of intellectual writing aimed at the common man stopped.,
You are one of those idiot fools who won't accept that a non-PhD can ever say anything. Why don't you start up that idiot Dr Jill Biden rap of yours. Entertain us

Wrong as usual, you angry religious extremist.

Show us the peer reviewed material that preacher Shedinger has submitted for scrutiny.

Preacher Shedinger won't submit anything for peer review because he has done no research or investigation. By even the most generous of considerations, the peer-reviewed scientific review from ID’iot creationer hacks is virtually non-existent.

 

[Libby von H]

Wrong as usual, you angry religious extremist.

Show us the peer reviewed material that preacher Shedinger has submitted for scrutiny.

Preacher Shedinger won't submit anything for peer review because he has done no research or investigation. By even the most generous of considerations, the peer-reviewed scientific review from ID’iot creationer hacks is virtually non-existent.

As a scientifically-trained person I have to laugh at your ignorance about peer-review.MANY scientists now say it is a complete shuck

Here is the 3-part series on the utter failure of peer-review, by the National Assciation of Scholars

Shifting Sands: Keeping Count of Government Science Series | NAS

<p>The Shifting Sands project examines how irreproducible science affects select areas of government policy and regulation. The first report on <em>PM_2.5Regulation</em> focuses on irreproducible research in the field of environmental epidemiology, which informs the U.S. Environmental...

www.nas.org

ENJOY< DON"T GAG

 

[DGS49]

A scientific "theory" is a logical explanation for something that we cannot observe directly. There were many theories about the size, shape, and nature of the ATOM, and ultimately we reached the point where we could observe some of them (electron microscope), so all the theories went out the window, replaced by factual knowledge.

We cannot observe the process by which different species come into being; they simply take too long. "Evolution" is a nice, neat theory that is more or less consistent with what we can observe, so we use it as a teaching tool. But like a sixty-year-old beauty, its value decreases the closer we look. Whole books have been written about the things that Evolution cannot explain, and the proofs that it just doesn't work in many specific instances (some THING cannot be explained by natural selection).

The staunchest defenders of Evolution are Leftists with no knowledge or understanding of any science. They have converted Evolution from a scientific theory to a "religion" (something that is accepted on faith), and woe to anyone who challenges it. HERETICS! But I have news for them: Just because one debunks Evolution does not necessarily mean that one accepts Genesis as a historical or scientific explanation of the origin of species.

 

[Hollie]

As a scientifically-trained person I have to laugh at your ignorance about peer-review.MANY scientists now say it is a complete shuck

Here is the 3-part series on the utter failure of peer-review, by the National Assciation of Scholars

Shifting Sands: Keeping Count of Government Science Series | NAS

<p>The Shifting Sands project examines how irreproducible science affects select areas of government policy and regulation. The first report on <em>PM_2.5Regulation</em> focuses on irreproducible research in the field of environmental epidemiology, which informs the U.S. Environmental...

www.nas.org

ENJOY< DON"T GAG

Now that was pretty darn funny. As a liberal arts / gender studies grad, it's clear why your cutting and pasting comes from non-scientific sources.

From the "about" section of your link:

The National Association of Scholars upholds the standards of a liberal arts education that fosters intellectual freedom, searches for the truth, and promotes virtuous citizenship.​

Grab a handkerchief and cover your mouth while you're gagging.

 

[scruffy]

Wrong as usual, you angry religious extremist.

Show us the peer reviewed material that preacher Shedinger has submitted for scrutiny.

Preacher Shedinger won't submit anything for peer review because he has done no research or investigation. By even the most generous of considerations, the peer-reviewed scientific review from ID’iot creationer hacks is virtually non-existent.

Not virtually. ENTIRELY.

Because, there is no experiment, that can prove or disprove the existence of God.

Religious nutballs would do well to leave science to the scientists.

 

[Libby von H]

A scientific "theory" is a logical explanation for something that we cannot observe directly. There were many theories about the size, shape, and nature of the ATOM, and ultimately we reached the point where we could observe some of them (electron microscope), so all the theories went out the window, replaced by factual knowledge.

We cannot observe the process by which different species come into being; they simply take too long. "Evolution" is a nice, neat theory that is more or less consistent with what we can observe, so we use it as a teaching tool. But like a sixty-year-old beauty, its value decreases the closer we look. Whole books have been written about the things that Evolution cannot explain, and the proofs that it just doesn't work in many specific instances (some THING cannot be explained by natural selection).

The staunchest defenders of Evolution are Leftists with no knowledge or understanding of any science. They have converted Evolution from a scientific theory to a "religion" (something that is accepted on faith), and woe to anyone who challenges it. HERETICS! But I have news for them: Just because one debunks Evolution does not necessarily mean that one accepts Genesis as a historical or scientific explanation of the origin of species.

No, a scientific theory is coherent explanation that only ties together what we observer directly or by instruments extending our senses.
It is not an explanation except insofar as it accords with current theory. an electron microscope changes nothing. In fact what you assume is the OPPOSITE of modern. science, which is based on observing CHANGES the observed

": The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics."

Genesis is what one thinks before any corroboration or science,it is the BASIS of science, ESSENCES...most on here are Nominalists and accept a view that denies science

 

[Hollie]

No, a scientific theory is coherent explanation that only ties together what we observer directly or by instruments extending our senses.
It is not an explanation except insofar as it accords with current theory. an electron microscope changes nothing. In fact what you assume is the OPPOSITE of modern. science, which is based on observing CHANGES the observed

": The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics."

Genesis is what one thinks before any corroboration or science,it is the BASIS of science, ESSENCES...most on here are Nominalists and accept a view that denies science

Wrong, as usual. As you lack a science vocabulary, I'm happy to lend an assist.

The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948).

A theory (in the accepted science framework), is a plausible explanation for a physical event or a phenomenon.

A valid scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is an explanation that makes specific predictions, is substantiated by repeatable experiments of testable physical evidence. The results of those tests and experiments are then available for duplication by others, and must be potentially falsifiable.

Genesis (or any other supernatural creation fable), is literally the last thing that one looks to for corroboration of any science matter.

 

[Failzero]

Wrong, as usual. As you lack a science vocabulary, I'm happy to lend an assist.

The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948).

A theory (in the accepted science framework), is a plausible explanation for a physical event or a phenomenon.

A valid scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is an explanation that makes specific predictions, is substantiated by repeatable experiments of testable physical evidence. The results of those tests and experiments are then available for duplication by others, and must be potentially falsifiable.

Genesis (or any other supernatural creation fable), is literally the last thing that one looks to for corroboration of any science matter.

Fables like Islam
( Hallucinations in a cave brought on by a Widower ‘s Grief and guilt over Pedo tendencies )

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's whiney, droput

No, that's you sissying out. As you always do. The only things you forgot were to lie about my position and to create a strawman for yourself to diddle.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We cannot observe the process by which different species come into being

100% wrong. We observe it every single day.

You don't understand evolution. Never before has one species given birth to an individual of a different species. Species are arbitrary designations invented by us to help organize our knowledge.

 

[Libby von H]

Wrong, as usual. As you lack a science vocabulary, I'm happy to lend an assist.

The term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions, means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948).

A theory (in the accepted science framework), is a plausible explanation for a physical event or a phenomenon.

A valid scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is an explanation that makes specific predictions, is substantiated by repeatable experiments of testable physical evidence. The results of those tests and experiments are then available for duplication by others, and must be potentially falsifiable.

Genesis (or any other supernatural creation fable), is literally the last thing that one looks to for corroboration of any science matter.

No," theory " in Philosohy of Science rules that out completely.

“In so far as a theory cannot be tested by experience—or appears not capable of being so tested—it ought to be revised so that its predictions are restricted to observable magnitudes.”
― Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy

TOTALLY WRONG.Do you observe 'evolution' NO

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No," theory " in Philosohy of Science rules that out completely.

“In so far as a theory cannot be tested by experience—or appears not capable of being so tested—it ought to be revised so that its predictions are restricted to observable magnitudes.”
― Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy

TOTALLY WRONG.Do you observe 'evolution' NO

100% wrong.

Evolution is observed every single day. You couldn't stop evolution if you tried.

 

[scruffy]

TOTALLY WRONG.Do you observe 'evolution' NO

Of course we do. Bacteriologists observe it literally thousands of times a day.

More than that - a completely synthetic man made organism has evolved in the laboratory.

Where do you get your wishful claims?

Of COURSE we observe evolution. Everyone does. Even you.

 

[San Souci]

Darwin was a GENIUS
His realization about the similarities and evolution of species over time was groundbreaking

The religious powers of the time considered him a heretic

Well ,maybe YOUR ancestors were Apes. I do see the resemblance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well ,maybe YOUR ancestors were Apes. I do see the resemblance.

We are apes.

And the resemblance holds for all of us.

 

[scruffy]

We are apes.

And the resemblance holds for all of us.

Hey, it's Mini-Me!