Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Unless one wants to muddy the waters and convince people with no scientific background that evolution is wrong. For the common man in the street, Darwin is Evolution. If Darwin wasn't 100% right, then Evolution must be wrong.
When the anti-science crowd starts getting papers in Nature and Science and the top tier biology and evolutionary science journals, I'll start paying them mind.
And, apparently, the anti-science crowd is composed of those who with science challenge the veracity of evolutionary theory? So what you're actually saying is that your mind is closed to the philosophical and scientific problems with evolutionary theory?
Except those challenging the science aren't doing the work to back up the challenge. The handful of biologists that are the lynch pin of the "science" behind crap like ID aren't producing peer-reviewed work that challenges the science, they aren't presenting at conferences, they aren't showing the scientific community why the accepted science is wrong on a professional level. What they are doing is opining on blogs and websites and books written for the uneducated public about why evolution is wrong. It's akin to a physician saying germ theory is bullshit, but only saying that to the average man in the street and not to the medical community and backing up his statement with work.
PC.. Proof and the lack of proof has no business being filtered through your brain.
You accept hundreds of errors in the bible "on faith". Yet you shuffle the deck on Darwin's efforts to suit your ends and cry foul. You don't even want it "both ways". You are worse than that.
I don't understand how you find the gaul to scrape up and present as an honest broker. You are a most dishonest and biased judge of science.
Darwin need not fear your trial. The verdict was "in" before you even got started. I'm not sure who you hoped to convince with this over reaching exercise but I would question the intelligence of anyone that would take the time to plug in your variables and using your flawed recipie come up with a paralell conclusion.
See what I mean, Chick? There's really no substance in this post, just bluster. Also, errors in the Bible? What errors?
Right off the top of my head each of the four gospels has a different last statement by Jesus. Either something is wrong or the Bible just a literary Rashoman.
See what I mean, Chick? There's really no substance in this post, just bluster. Also, errors in the Bible? What errors?
Right off the top of my head each of the four gospels has a different last statement by Jesus. Either something is wrong or the Bible just a literary Rashoman.
There were many final statements made by Christ. See this is the criticism of an unqualified, robotic mind with little real knowledge on the matter. You do no grasp the nature of these narratives; their ramifications relative to their varying themes and perspectives utterly elude you. These are not errors or contradictions.
Double talk?? You people have quadruple talk !!! AND don't forget that no matter how sticky the wickett you can always fall back on FAITH !!! I saw no "truth" at all in your generalization of "evolutionists". As with so many fundamentalists, you hope to use "evolutionists" as a slur. Very few of you fundamentalists actually have a working knowledge of science or the ability to offer much beside cutting and pasting of phony "quotes".Adnan Oktar (born 1956), also known as Harun Yahya, is a Turkish author referred to as "the biggest propagator of ijaz literature" as well as an Islamic creationist. In 2007, he sent thousands of unsolicited copies of his book, Atlas of Creation,[4] which advocates Islamic creationism, to American scientists, members of Congress, and science museums. Oktar runs two organizations of which he is also the Honorary President: Bilim Araştırma Vakfı (literally, "Science Research Foundation", BAV, established 1990), which promotes creationism and Milli Değerleri Koruma Vakfı (literally, "National Values Preservation Foundation", established 1995)
Harun Yahya preaches Islam, slams Darwin and awaits Jesus
He is an illiterate in science much like the OP
One would imagine you could show all of the errors in the OP.....
...but that would require quite an imagination.
I wonder why you haven't attempted to?
The truth: 99.9% of the "evolutionists" on this board know next to nothing about the actual science. The establishment of popular culture and science has been telling them for years that anyone who challenges the veracity of evolutionary theory is a kook. That's why very few of them ever really discuss anything of substance. They're belief is the stuff of conformity and insult.
And, apparently, the anti-science crowd is composed of those who with science challenge the veracity of evolutionary theory? So what you're actually saying is that your mind is closed to the philosophical and scientific problems with evolutionary theory?
Except those challenging the science aren't doing the work to back up the challenge. The handful of biologists that are the lynch pin of the "science" behind crap like ID aren't producing peer-reviewed work that challenges the science, they aren't presenting at conferences, they aren't showing the scientific community why the accepted science is wrong on a professional level. What they are doing is opining on blogs and websites and books written for the uneducated public about why evolution is wrong. It's akin to a physician saying germ theory is bullshit, but only saying that to the average man in the street and not to the medical community and backing up his statement with work.
Again we have no substance, just the same ol' trite slogans. The number of biologists who eschew evolutionary theory is significant and growing, and of course they do produce peer reviewable work, but it simply does not get reviewed by the establishment because dissent is not allowed.
And, apparently, the anti-science crowd is composed of those who with science challenge the veracity of evolutionary theory? So what you're actually saying is that your mind is closed to the philosophical and scientific problems with evolutionary theory?
Except those challenging the science aren't doing the work to back up the challenge. The handful of biologists that are the lynch pin of the "science" behind crap like ID aren't producing peer-reviewed work that challenges the science, they aren't presenting at conferences, they aren't showing the scientific community why the accepted science is wrong on a professional level. What they are doing is opining on blogs and websites and books written for the uneducated public about why evolution is wrong. It's akin to a physician saying germ theory is bullshit, but only saying that to the average man in the street and not to the medical community and backing up his statement with work.
Again we have no substance, just the same ol' trite slogans. The number of biologists who eschew evolutionary theory is significant and growing, and of course they do produce peer reviewable work, but it simply does not get reviewed by the establishment because dissent is not allowed.
PC.. Proof and the lack of proof has no business being filtered through your brain.
You accept hundreds of errors in the bible "on faith". Yet you shuffle the deck on Darwin's efforts to suit your ends and cry foul. You don't even want it "both ways". You are worse than that.
I don't understand how you find the gaul to scrape up and present as an honest broker. You are a most dishonest and biased judge of science.
Darwin need not fear your trial. The verdict was "in" before you even got started. I'm not sure who you hoped to convince with this over reaching exercise but I would question the intelligence of anyone that would take the time to plug in your variables and using your flawed recipie come up with a paralell conclusion.
See what I mean, Chick? There's really no substance in this post, just bluster. Also, errors in the Bible? What errors?
See what I mean, Chick? There's really no substance in this post, just bluster. Also, errors in the Bible? What errors?
Right off the top of my head each of the four gospels has a different last statement by Jesus. Either something is wrong or the Bible just a literary Rashoman.
There were many final statements made by Christ. See this is the criticism of an unqualified, robotic mind with little real knowledge on the matter. You do no grasp the nature of these narratives; their ramifications relative to their varying themes and perspectives utterly elude you. These are not errors or contradictions.
Except those challenging the science aren't doing the work to back up the challenge. The handful of biologists that are the lynch pin of the "science" behind crap like ID aren't producing peer-reviewed work that challenges the science, they aren't presenting at conferences, they aren't showing the scientific community why the accepted science is wrong on a professional level. What they are doing is opining on blogs and websites and books written for the uneducated public about why evolution is wrong. It's akin to a physician saying germ theory is bullshit, but only saying that to the average man in the street and not to the medical community and backing up his statement with work.
Again we have no substance, just the same ol' trite slogans. The number of biologists who eschew evolutionary theory is significant and growing, and of course they do produce peer reviewable work, but it simply does not get reviewed by the establishment because dissent is not allowed.
Nonsense.
Reasoned arguments come from those who spend their time studying the issues. There is a standard debunked creationist claim that Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
Of the 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences, only 700 consider "creation-science" a valid theory. Yup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
More facts and less fundamentalist blathering would go a long way where your comments are concerned.
Again we have no substance, just the same ol' trite slogans. The number of biologists who eschew evolutionary theory is significant and growing, and of course they do produce peer reviewable work, but it simply does not get reviewed by the establishment because dissent is not allowed.
Nonsense.
Reasoned arguments come from those who spend their time studying the issues. There is a standard debunked creationist claim that Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
Of the 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences, only 700 consider "creation-science" a valid theory. Yup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
More facts and less fundamentalist blathering would go a long way where your comments are concerned.
I would be curious why the 700 or so that would give a creation theory any validity came to that conclusion.
My guess is that most of the "700 club" are so indoctrinated that they would HAVE to at the very least fall back on FAITH to reach that conclusion.
I can see how one tenth of one percent could still be under the grip of personal peer pressure and fear. There are a lot of religious people that care deeply what their spouses and family believe and fear reprocussions if they go against the feelings of those close to them...not to mention the personal fear of what their eternal future may hold if they piss off god by siding with 99.9 percent of scientific humanity against the chance there is an eternal life no matter what the emperical evidense.
Again we have no substance, just the same ol' trite slogans. The number of biologists who eschew evolutionary theory is significant and growing, and of course they do produce peer reviewable work, but it simply does not get reviewed by the establishment because dissent is not allowed.
Nonsense.
Reasoned arguments come from those who spend their time studying the issues. There is a standard debunked creationist claim that Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
Of the 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences, only 700 consider "creation-science" a valid theory. Yup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
More facts and less fundamentalist blathering would go a long way where your comments are concerned.
I would be curious why the 700 or so that would give a creation theory any validity came to that conclusion.
My guess is that most of the "700 club" are so indoctrinated that they would HAVE to at the very least fall back on FAITH to reach that conclusion.
I can see how one tenth of one percent could still be under the grip of personal peer pressure and fear. There are a lot of religious people that care deeply what their spouses and family believe and fear reprocussions if they go against the feelings of those close to them...not to mention the personal fear of what their eternal future may hold if they piss off god by siding with 99.9 percent of scientific humanity against the chance there is an eternal life no matter what the emperical evidense.
I saw no "truth" at all in your generalization of "evolutionists". As with so many fundamentalists, you hope to use "evolutionists" as a slur. Very few of you fundamentalists actually have a working knowledge of science or the ability to offer much beside cutting and pasting of phony "quotes".One would imagine you could show all of the errors in the OP.....
...but that would require quite an imagination.
I wonder why you haven't attempted to?
The truth: 99.9% of the "evolutionists" on this board know next to nothing about the actual science. The establishment of popular culture and science has been telling them for years that anyone who challenges the veracity of evolutionary theory is a kook. That's why very few of them ever really discuss anything of substance. They're belief is the stuff of conformity and insult.
Aside from your goofy slogans, the flaming only reinforces a lot of negative stereotypes about rabid ID'iots/fundamentalists. You seem consumed by paranoia about those crafty "evilutionists" and some sinister global conspiracy you think is running afoul of your religious convictions.I saw no "truth" at all in your generalization of "evolutionists". As with so many fundamentalists, you hope to use "evolutionists" as a slur. Very few of you fundamentalists actually have a working knowledge of science or the ability to offer much beside cutting and pasting of phony "quotes".The truth: 99.9% of the "evolutionists" on this board know next to nothing about the actual science. The establishment of popular culture and science has been telling them for years that anyone who challenges the veracity of evolutionary theory is a kook. That's why very few of them ever really discuss anything of substance. They're belief is the stuff of conformity and insult.
You don't know the first thing about my background. How could you?
Instead of making my point with your predictable sloganeering, why don't you tell us why evolution is true; you know, demonstrate real knowledge beginning with the metaphysical presupposition of evolutionary theory and watch what happens to your secular fundamentalism when confronted by a former evolutionist who knows the science inside and out.
Phonies. You don't really know anything at all.
Where are the evolutionists on this board who actually know the science and can discuss it without all this personal crap?
Where are the evolutionists who actually talk about the science?
Don't see any on this thread.
How about on this one. Check this post out. Look how all you phonies never actually talk about the science itself. Here we have a fraud confounding XNA and DNA and the actual nature of replication in biochemical engineering, a fraud who doesn't have the first clue about the pertinent actualities of pre-biotic materials found in nature. Bluster is his middle name, and bluster is all he ever talks.
Example: http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-9.html#post8953099
Starts here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...e-evolution-proves-metapysical-nauralism.html
I saw no "truth" at all in your generalization of "evolutionists". As with so many fundamentalists, you hope to use "evolutionists" as a slur. Very few of you fundamentalists actually have a working knowledge of science or the ability to offer much beside cutting and pasting of phony "quotes".
You don't know the first thing about my background. How could you?
Instead of making my point with your predictable sloganeering, why don't you tell us why evolution is true; you know, demonstrate real knowledge beginning with the metaphysical presupposition of evolutionary theory and watch what happens to your secular fundamentalism when confronted by a former evolutionist who knows the science inside and out.
Phonies. You don't really know anything at all.
Where are the evolutionists on this board who actually know the science and can discuss it without all this personal crap?
Where are the evolutionists who actually talk about the science?
Don't see any on this thread.
How about on this one. Check this post out. Look how all you phonies never actually talk about the science itself. Here we have a fraud confounding XNA and DNA and the actual nature of replication in biochemical engineering, a fraud who doesn't have the first clue about the pertinent actualities of pre-biotic materials found in nature. Bluster is his middle name, and bluster is all he ever talks.
Example: http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-9.html#post8953099
Starts here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...e-evolution-proves-metapysical-nauralism.html
Aside from your goofy slogans, the flaming only reinforces a lot of negative stereotypes about rabid ID'iots/fundamentalists. You seem consumed by paranoia about those crafty "evilutionists" and some sinister global conspiracy you think is running afoul of your religious convictions.
As is typical for the ID'iot crowd, you rail against science but are wholly ineffectual at offering any substance for your claims to super-magical gads.
You don't know the first thing about my background. How could you?
Instead of making my point with your predictable sloganeering, why don't you tell us why evolution is true; you know, demonstrate real knowledge beginning with the metaphysical presupposition of evolutionary theory and watch what happens to your secular fundamentalism when confronted by a former evolutionist who knows the science inside and out.
Phonies. You don't really know anything at all.
Where are the evolutionists on this board who actually know the science and can discuss it without all this personal crap?
Where are the evolutionists who actually talk about the science?
Don't see any on this thread.
How about on this one. Check this post out. Look how all you phonies never actually talk about the science itself. Here we have a fraud confounding XNA and DNA and the actual nature of replication in biochemical engineering, a fraud who doesn't have the first clue about the pertinent actualities of pre-biotic materials found in nature. Bluster is his middle name, and bluster is all he ever talks.
Example: http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-9.html#post8953099
Starts here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...e-evolution-proves-metapysical-nauralism.html
Aside from your goofy slogans, the flaming only reinforces a lot of negative stereotypes about rabid ID'iots/fundamentalists. You seem consumed by paranoia about those crafty "evilutionists" and some sinister global conspiracy you think is running afoul of your religious convictions.
As is typical for the ID'iot crowd, you rail against science but are wholly ineffectual at offering any substance for your claims to super-magical gads.
Flaming?! All the hot air is coming from the likes of you.
Still no science? You can't even discuss theological matters without flaming. BTW, are you making scientific claims about ontologically metaphysical existents? Behold the pseudoscience of atheism.
*crickets chirping*
And look at this, more ignorance: "You seem consumed by paranoia about those crafty "evilutionists" and some sinister global conspiracy."
I was alluding to the politics of American academia. In Europe, the findings of prominent biologists and biochemists which entail profound implications challenging the traditional presuppositions of evolutionary theory are routinely refereed, the stuff that isn't science according to you. But you really have no idea what I'm talking about, as (1) I'm not a fundamentalist at all and (2) the only ninnies who keep gong on about theological matters on either one of these threads, rather than discuss the actual science, are you atheists.
I repeat, where are the evolutionists on this board who actually discuss the science, those who can actually tells us with firsthand knowledge and understanding why evolution is true?
Hollie clearly isn't one of them.
Nonsense.
Reasoned arguments come from those who spend their time studying the issues. There is a standard debunked creationist claim that Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
Of the 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences, only 700 consider "creation-science" a valid theory. Yup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.
CA111: Scientists reject evolution?
More facts and less fundamentalist blathering would go a long way where your comments are concerned.
I would be curious why the 700 or so that would give a creation theory any validity came to that conclusion.
My guess is that most of the "700 club" are so indoctrinated that they would HAVE to at the very least fall back on FAITH to reach that conclusion.
I can see how one tenth of one percent could still be under the grip of personal peer pressure and fear. There are a lot of religious people that care deeply what their spouses and family believe and fear reprocussions if they go against the feelings of those close to them...not to mention the personal fear of what their eternal future may hold if they piss off god by siding with 99.9 percent of scientific humanity against the chance there is an eternal life no matter what the emperical evidense.
I don't even see a fear factor, to be honest, at least from any professional standpoint. Any biologist that can prove Darwin and the last century and a half of evolutionary science is flat out wrong and that life doesn't evolve is getting a Nobel Prize at the very least. He'll have his pick of institutions to go to because every single one will be fighting to get him. He'll have an almost endless amount of grant money flowing to him for research, not to mention book deals, public speaking gigs, getting to be on every single talk show.
I'm a physics student. If I can prove Newton or Einstein or Clerk-Maxwell or any other giant on whose shoulders I am standing was wrong, the sky is my limit. But I won't be doing that because all those people's work has stood up to countless tests. If evolutionary theory has stood up to 150+ years of scrutiny, it isn't going anywhere.
As far as the whole idea that they are doing God's work in trying to undermine science, or at least not make it any worse, I don't know. I know that self-rationalization is a powerful tool and can lead people to forget their training, forget how to reason, forget logic. Gerry Bouw got a PhD in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University. He is also a Geocentrist. I'm fairly certain the works of Copernicus and Kepler were mentioned at least once, but if it contradicts the Bible, it is wrong regardless of what the evidence shows us. If a trained astronomer is willing to turn his back on the science he learned because his Holy Book isn't in agreement with the science it isn't inconceivable that True Believer Holly Roller biologists won't do the same in their field.
Or do you always argue against the straw men of laymen believers because . . . well, you're more comfortable playing in the sand box with your intellectually bigoted and ill-informed beliefs?First, evolutionists dismissed the "flat earthers" who pointed out the general lack of what should be a vast array of unmistakable intermediate forms in the fossil record, while at the same time the former also advanced the notion of punctuated equilibrium, which attempts to account for that very lack of tangible evidence.
Then evolutionists claimed that so-called vestigial organs constituted the best evidence for their theory, but that bit of arrogance appears to be unraveling in the face of recent medical discoveries, but in any event, such expressive phenomena are a common aspect of microspeciation within well-established species, not necessarily the stuff of macroevolution.
Recently, evolutionists have claimed that endogenous retroviruses constituted the very best evidence for their theory, but now we are finding that ERV's were not initially harmful or necessarily the left-over junk of a common ancestry; but elemental, viral material that were passed via ingestion from one well-established species to another that could not possibly be directly related. They are in fact intricately fine-tuned components that perform vital regulatory functions . . . just like a vast array of beneficial bacteria.
This potentiality was anticipated and argued by the "flat earthers" who recognized that the evolutionist's belief was teleological in nature and scientifically presumptuous.
Gee wiz.
And creationism and ID are not real science, because, supposedly, they have no real predictive power. Will someone please explain what predictive power evolutionary theory has given the fact that its predictions arise from a premise in which evolution is already assumed to be true? Is evolutionary theory argued from the evidence or imposed on the evidence? M.D. Rawlings
In any event, Readers, note that as I talk substance, here and on the other thread, Steven and Hollie are still spouting insults and rubbish about what the Bible teaches, and have yet to demonstrate that they have any first-hand knowledge of significance about the theory they worship.
More personal garbage. More sloganeering. More of the same ol' sneering claptrap about the Bible from boobs and bores who don't know anything about that system of thought either!
In any event, Readers, note that as I talk substance, here and on the other thread, Steven and Hollie are still spouting insults and rubbish about what the Bible teaches, and have yet to demonstrate that they have any first-hand knowledge of significance about the theory they worship.
More personal garbage. More sloganeering. More of the same ol' sneering claptrap about the Bible from boobs and bores who don't know anything about that system of thought either!
Wow. You hyper-religious types are nothing but blowhards.
