Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

[Old Rocks]

Creation and/or intelligent design is a much more viable "theory" than evolution is.

In any case, you are still wrong. Evolution is far from being "fact." If it were provable then someone would have done it, and they'd be the most famous person on earth. Problem is it can't be proven. It remains and always will remain nothing more than a theory.

And sorry but, you claiming it's fact won't make it so. You're just going to have to find a way to deal with it.

Intelligent Design was proven fraud in a bench trial in Dover, Pa. by a conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge.
The intelligent design proponents and the members of the Dover school board were proven liars and frauds in open court. Read the Judge's opinion where he labels them so.
Perjury charges were almost brought against them. The local school board members tried to add ID as science in their curriculum.
ID is re-packaged creationism and that was proven fraud as science a long time ago.
The exact same literature was exposed in the Dover case as when they taught ID as creationism.
Same thing. Nothing scientific in any of it.
Why do they have to lie to attempt to "prove" their case?

Nothing scientific in the evolution theory either.

LOL. Got to love the willfull ignorance displayed by our 'Conservatives'.

 

[Gadawg73]

Creation and/or intelligent design is a much more viable "theory" than evolution is.

In any case, you are still wrong. Evolution is far from being "fact." If it were provable then someone would have done it, and they'd be the most famous person on earth. Problem is it can't be proven. It remains and always will remain nothing more than a theory.

And sorry but, you claiming it's fact won't make it so. You're just going to have to find a way to deal with it.

Intelligent Design was proven fraud in a bench trial in Dover, Pa. by a conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge.
The intelligent design proponents and the members of the Dover school board were proven liars and frauds in open court. Read the Judge's opinion where he labels them so.
Perjury charges were almost brought against them. The local school board members tried to add ID as science in their curriculum.
ID is re-packaged creationism and that was proven fraud as science a long time ago.
The exact same literature was exposed in the Dover case as when they taught ID as creationism.
Same thing. Nothing scientific in any of it.
Why do they have to lie to attempt to "prove" their case?

Nothing scientific in the evolution theory either.

 

[Gadawg73]

Einstein was proven wrong on quantum mechanics entanglement. Way wrong.
And most of those other scientists were PERSECUTED for their scientific findings.
By GUESS WHO?

 

[Gadgeteer]

Don't tell me....don't tell me

You failed High School Biology

If she was like me, I was the troublemaker raising my hand, saying:
"Uhm, excuse me, that's not really accurate, is it?"

Of course I'm nowhere near as tactless of someone I knew once, who would say things to college profs like:
"Didn't he go to jail back then for falsifying those very images? Shouldn't you know a little more about your subject before you teach it?"

That little harangue was followed by a few seconds of cold stare, then the chalk was thrown across the room and the professor stormed out of the room...

(...and the rest of the class clapped and cheered...)

 

[Gadgeteer]

What kind of a God did they believe in? In fact, one can state that most of the great thinkers involved in the founding of this nation believed in God, but were not Christians. They were Diests.

So who is it that said "If you say something often enough and loud enough, eventually ...they will believe it"?

That would be Hitler. Adolf, don'tchya know. The one who tied his shoes in little Nazis.

Let's presume you (and other readers) have respectable IQ's, and are willing to acknowledge TRUTH. Here is a link trashing the lie about "Deists":

“The Founding Fathers & Deism”

w ww.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=113

(Alas, I haven't the 15 posts yet for links; so I will just have to monkey around with a missing link...)

 

[Gadgeteer]

LOL. Got to love the willfull ignorance displayed by our 'Conservatives'.

Einstein once said (assuming fake German accent):

"Za deeference betveen GENIUS, und STUPID, ees GENIUS hass LEEMITS!!!"​

...oh, wait; Einstein was conservative, so he could only have been talking about liberals...

 

[rdean]

To the right wing, evolution is not only a "theory", but not a very good one.

So are you a monkey's uncle?

See.

 

[Gadgeteer]

To the right wing, evolution is not only a "theory", but not a very good one.

So are you a monkey's uncle?

See.

Two monkeys at a zoo were eavesdropping on a film about evolution. When the movie ended, one said:
"I'm hungry; where's the guy with the food?"
The other spun around and snapped, "What am I, my KEEPER'S BROTHER???"

 

[KissMy]

To the right wing, evolution is not only a "theory", but not a very good one.

So are you a monkey's uncle?

See.

Wrong! - You are not a monkey's uncle. That just proves how clueless you are about science.

 

[Photonic]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Old Rocks]

But we have only been able to study that on Planet Earth too. We are a teensy Class M planet in a teensy solar system with a teensy insignificant sun that is just a microscopic dot in an huge enormous universe. What if we find it worked entirely differently somewhere else in another solar system? Or even on a moon of some larger planet in our own solar system?

Well, in that case we will see a revolution in biology and great excitement indeed.

However, the claim made above was that there was no evidence mammals had evolved, and that is simply untrue.

And to assume that scientific theory of the origins of the universe prior to the big bang or even within components of the big bang are any better or more testable or falsifiable than is a theory of intelligent design is maybe one of the hugest leaps of faith humankind could make.

There are no scientific theories of the origins of the universe prior to the big bang. In fact, that branch of physics/astronomy begins a very short time after the big bang.

I am not one who has ever said mammals did not evolve. I am only saying that there is no scientific principle, testable or falsifiable, to tell us how a primal goo cam to be in the first place from which any living organism emerged and evolved. Science has yet to create any form of life whatsoever from inert matter.

So you think there is no scientific curiosity that exists prior to the big bang? That isn't important? What sort of limited thought is involved that say what existed before the big bang does not matter? And what we know, despite the huge gaps in our knowledge, of what happened then and since is all that counts? You have to be kidding.

And you said that Einstein made no statements that were not falsifiable. So falsify or offer a way to falsify this:

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”--Albert Einstein.

old news

NAI: News Stories

 

[Cammmpbell]

Well, in that case we will see a revolution in biology and great excitement indeed.

However, the claim made above was that there was no evidence mammals had evolved, and that is simply untrue.



There are no scientific theories of the origins of the universe prior to the big bang. In fact, that branch of physics/astronomy begins a very short time after the big bang.

I am not one who has ever said mammals did not evolve. I am only saying that there is no scientific principle, testable or falsifiable, to tell us how a primal goo cam to be in the first place from which any living organism emerged and evolved. Science has yet to create any form of life whatsoever from inert matter.

So you think there is no scientific curiosity that exists prior to the big bang? That isn't important? What sort of limited thought is involved that say what existed before the big bang does not matter? And what we know, despite the huge gaps in our knowledge, of what happened then and since is all that counts? You have to be kidding.

And you said that Einstein made no statements that were not falsifiable. So falsify or offer a way to falsify this:

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”--Albert Einstein.

old news

NAI: News Stories

Yeah...they don't want you to read these two paragraphs from his obituary:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world," he said on another occasion, "is that it is comprehensible."

 

[Gadgeteer]

I am not one who has ever said mammals did not evolve. I am only saying that there is no scientific principle, testable or falsifiable, to tell us how a primal goo came to be in the first place from which any living organism emerged and evolved. Science has yet to create any form of life whatsoever from inert matter.

100% correct. In the post I made (that everyone is ignoring, 'cause they can't answer it), the statistics of life-origin (first living cell) are so outrageous, as to be identically zero. Raised to the power of infinity. Raised again, and again and again. The "Stanley/Urey Biogenesis Experiment" even though fraudulent, makes no attempt to explain life-origin. It's just pure faith.

Ironic that though the 17th century "Spontaneous Generation" theory is considered patently absurd, that is the basis of evolution.

Things that make you go "HMMMmmmm..."

So you think there is no scientific curiosity that exists prior to the big bang? That isn't important? What sort of limited thought is involved that say what existed before the big bang does not matter? And what we know, despite the huge gaps in our knowledge, of what happened then and since is all that counts? You have to be kidding.

And you said that Einstein made no statements that were not falsifiable. So falsify or offer a way to falsify this:

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”--Albert Einstein.

Einstein did not consider that the whole purpose of the Creation, was love.

Yeah...they don't want you to read these two paragraphs from his obituary:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.

God does not capriciously reward or punish anyone; each person decides for himself the benefit. By choosing to thumb their noses at the Creator, men choose for themselves to be isolated from God.

Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.

There is too much evidence for something after death. People in comas who suffer "near-death experiences" recount with startling detail their resuscitation, even entire conversations of medical personnel, and conversations even in different rooms.

It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.

This is an outrage. There is no "intelligence manifested in nature" (according to Evolution), it is all the product of blind random chance; we are worth nothing, mere "slime that crawled from the sea".

Nevertheless, it is terribly prideful and arrogant; though we have no value, we are considered the height of intelligence in the Universe, we "create God in our own image".

While many of us perceive science and the Universe to be SCREAMING the presence of intelligence.

"The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork."

Just view one cell in your own body, and marvel at the sophistication of the micro-machinery, the processes and functions, the absolute deep thought that constructed the whole thing.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

Yet it is a God who does concern Himself with the affairs of men.

That is the nature of "love", and the purpose of Creation.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world," he said on another occasion, "is that it is comprehensible."

I am convinced that Einstein solved the Unified Field. As anyone of any intelligence would have done, he chuckled for a little while, and then destroyed all traces of it.


Suppose I live my life with the structure of morality and faith, I avoid disease and enjoy a peaceful spirit. If I die and am wrong (if there is no life after death, no Heaven or Hell), I lose nothing; but have gained a worthy life.

What will be my thoughts (ignoring that I'm dead and can't think)? "Oh well, it was a good life."

Now suppose I live my life presuming there IS no God, I engage in every sexual perversion and lust and deviation that tickles my fancy. Assuming I don't die early because of disease, suppose then I die -- and find out God is real, there IS a Heaven and a Hell...

What will be my thoughts then?

AWWWW CRAAAAAAAPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Photonic]

I am not one who has ever said mammals did not evolve. I am only saying that there is no scientific principle, testable or falsifiable, to tell us how a primal goo came to be in the first place from which any living organism emerged and evolved. Science has yet to create any form of life whatsoever from inert matter.

100% correct. In the post I made (that everyone is ignoring, 'cause they can't answer it), the statistics of life-origin (first living cell) are so outrageous, as to be identically zero. Raised to the power of infinity. Raised again, and again and again. The "Stanley/Urey Biogenesis Experiment" even though fraudulent, makes no attempt to explain life-origin. It's just pure faith.

Ironic that though the 17th century "Spontaneous Generation" theory is considered patently absurd, that is the basis of evolution.

Things that make you go "HMMMmmmm..."

So you think there is no scientific curiosity that exists prior to the big bang? That isn't important? What sort of limited thought is involved that say what existed before the big bang does not matter? And what we know, despite the huge gaps in our knowledge, of what happened then and since is all that counts? You have to be kidding.

And you said that Einstein made no statements that were not falsifiable. So falsify or offer a way to falsify this:

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”--Albert Einstein.

Einstein did not consider that the whole purpose of the Creation, was love.
God does not capriciously reward or punish anyone; each person decides for himself the benefit. By choosing to thumb their noses at the Creator, men choose for themselves to be isolated from God. There is too much evidence for something after death. People in comas who suffer "near-death experiences" recount with startling detail their resuscitation, even entire conversations of medical personnel, and conversations even in different rooms. This is an outrage. There is no "intelligence manifested in nature", it is all the product of blind random chance; we are worth nothing, mere "slime that crawled from the sea".

Nevertheless, it is terribly prideful and arrogant; though we have no value, we are considered the height of intelligence in the Universe, we "create God in our own image".

While many of us perceive science and the Universe to be SCREAMING the presence of intelligence.

"The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork."

Just view one cell in your own body, and marvel at the sophistication of the micro-machinery, the processes and functions, the absolute deep thought that constructed the whole thing.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

Yet it is a God who does concern Himself with the affairs of men.

That is the nature of "love", and the purpose of Creation.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world," he said on another occasion, "is that it is comprehensible."

I am convinced that Einstein solved the Unified Field. As anyone of any intelligence would have done, he chuckled for a little while, and then destroyed all traces of it.


Suppose I live my life with the structure of morality and faith, I avoid disease and enjoy a peaceful spirit. If I die and am wrong (if there is no life after death, no Heaven or Hell), I lose nothing; but have gained a worthy life.

What will be my thoughts (ignoring that I'm dead and can't think)? "Oh well, it was a good life."

Now suppose I live my life presuming there IS no God, I engage in every sexual perversion and lust and deviation that tickles my fancy. Assuming I don't die early because of disease, suppose then I die -- and find out God is real, there IS a Heaven and a Hell...

What will be my thoughts then?

AWWWW CRAAAAAAAPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!

Pascals wager is a huge non sequitur. You DO know that...right?

Apparently not. I'm assuming you are actually being serious.

You do understand you would have to celebrate ALL RELIGIONS ON EARTH FOR THIS TO MAKE SENSE.

And all this nonsense about Einstein and God, I would like to point out that he was a declared scientific pantheist. Look it up. Stephen Hawkings is another scientific pantheist. Leonard Susskind is a scientific pantheist. I am.

Our God is the workings of the universe. As that is the only thing that makes sense to be called a God.


Dragon, you make mention that there are no cosmological theories prior to the big bang, but the multiverse theory applies, and attempts to explain the big bang.

 

[Cammmpbell]

There is too much evidence for something after death. People in comas who suffer "near-death experiences" recount with startling detail their resuscitation, even entire conversations of medical personnel, and conversations even in different rooms.AWWWW CRAAAAAAAPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!

There's few doctors in the world which will not attribute a brain short of blood and ozygen which will not quickly recount what's in the memory as it fades. Also the bright light is what will occur as the last oxygenated blood courses through the brain.

Forget it...that individual Christian crock of shit ended decades ago.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Pascals wager is a huge non sequitur. You DO know that...right?

Apparently not. I'm assuming you are actually being serious.

What about the rest of my post? And the ones before? Statistical impossibility? And we haven't even discussed thermodynamics..

You do understand you would have to celebrate ALL RELIGIONS ON EARTH FOR THIS TO MAKE SENSE.

If all religions said the same thing, then yes all would have to be celebrated.

But they don't. Each one perceives it's the only way. Each of us has to decide which view best fits the evidence, even you who have embraced the religion of Humanism/Evolution.

("Humanism" is self-professed to be a religious position, and is indissolubly tied with "Evolution".)


BTW, Christianity is the only one that is not based on good works, and that proposes "God-became-man".

And all this nonsense about Einstein and God, I would like to point out that he was a declared scientific pantheist. Look it up. Stephen Hawkings is another scientific pantheist. Leonard Susskind is a scientific pantheist. I am.

As such, your "God" does not think, feel, laugh, cry; He is not "self-aware".

Our God is the workings of the universe. As that is the only thing that makes sense to be called a God.

So the best thing I could wish you, might be:
"May the force be with you"???

Dragon, you make mention that there are no cosmological theories prior to the big bang, but the multiverse theory applies, and attempts to explain the big bang.

How does "multiverse" explain the "Big Bang"? And I don't believe in multiverses. Perhaps the double-slit-experiment is explained with interfering time paths.

Although the TV show "Sliders" was fun.

 

[Gadgeteer]

There are few doctors in the world which will not attribute a brain short of blood and oxygen which will not quickly recount what's in the memory as it fades. Also the bright light is what will occur as the last oxygenated blood courses through the brain.

That doesn't explain clear and detailed recounting of conversations.

Forget it...that individual Christian crock of **** ended decades ago.

What if it didn't? What if there is a motivation to believe it ended?

There is no such thing as an Atheist (I'll prove there are only "Agnostics" if you wish). And an Agnostic, if honest, would really like to know if there is a God.

Plenty of people have asked God if He was real. I did, and He answered. If He is real, if He thinks feels and interacts with Humans, it is reasonable to expect Him to answer.

...but you hafta be an "honest Agnostic", not a "dishonest" one. "Honest/dishonest" is part of the "There-are-no-Atheists" story. Have you heard it?

 

[konradv]

Pascals wager is a huge non sequitur. You DO know that...right?

Apparently not. I'm assuming you are actually being serious.

What about the rest of my post? And the ones before? Statistical impossibility? And we haven't even discussed thermodynamics..

Discuss away. There's no thermodynamic restriction with regard to evolution. That's just the hardline creationists trying to con the scientifically unsophisticated.

 

[Photonic]

Pascals wager is a huge non sequitur. You DO know that...right?

Apparently not. I'm assuming you are actually being serious.

What about the rest of my post? And the ones before? Statistical impossibility? And we haven't even discussed thermodynamics..

You do understand you would have to celebrate ALL RELIGIONS ON EARTH FOR THIS TO MAKE SENSE.

If all religions said the same thing, then yes all would have to be celebrated.

But they don't. Each one perceives it's the only way. Each of us has to decide which view best fits the evidence, even you who have embraced the religion of Humanism/Evolution.

("Humanism" is self-professed to be a religious position, and is indissolubly tied with "Evolution".)


BTW, Christianity is the only one that is not based on good works, and that proposes "God-became-man".
As such, your "God" does not think, feel, laugh, cry; He is not "self-aware".

Our God is the workings of the universe. As that is the only thing that makes sense to be called a God.

So the best thing I could wish you, might be:
"May the force be with you"???

Dragon, you make mention that there are no cosmological theories prior to the big bang, but the multiverse theory applies, and attempts to explain the big bang.

How does "multiverse" explain the "Big Bang"? And I don't believe in multiverses. Perhaps the double-slit-experiment is explained with interfering time paths.

Although the TV show "Sliders" was fun.

As to the double slit, dear God man, it's just phase cancellation.

 

[Cammmpbell]

There are few doctors in the world which will not attribute a brain short of blood and oxygen which will not quickly recount what's in the memory as it fades. Also the bright light is what will occur as the last oxygenated blood courses through the brain.

That doesn't explain clear and detailed recounting of conversations.

Forget it...that individual Christian crock of **** ended decades ago.

What if it didn't? What if there is a motivation to believe it ended?

There is no such thing as an Atheist (I'll prove there are only "Agnostics" if you wish). And an Agnostic, if honest, would really like to know if there is a God.

Plenty of people have asked God if He was real. I did, and He answered. If He is real, if He thinks feels and interacts with Humans, it is reasonable to expect Him to answer.

...but you hafta be an "honest Agnostic", not a "dishonest" one. "Honest/dishonest" is part of the "There-are-no-Atheists" story. Have you heard it?

I'll go with Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain and Albert Einstein any day:

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.



The Following From Mark Twain:

•Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion.


•The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter.


•It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.


•The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same, but the medical practice changes.


•No sinner is ever saved after the first twenty minutes of a sermon.


•India has 2,000,000 gods, and worships them all. In religion, other countries are paupers; India is the only millionaire.


•By temperament, which is the real law of God, many men are goats and can't help committing adultery when they get a chance; whereas there are numbers of men who, by temperament, can keep their purity and let an opportunity go by if the woman lacks in attractiveness.


•But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?


•It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.


•Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight.


From Albert Einstein's obituary 1955


"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world," he said on another occasion, "is that it is comprehensible."