God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Many thousands of scientists, statisticians, physicists, biochemists, and biologists dissent from Darwinism. They have prepared a petition and have hundreds and hundreds of signatures expressing their positions that Darwinism is an abject failure. This breadth and depth of disagreement COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE if Darwinism were remotely as "factual" as its bitter, hateful proponents claim.

I have updated my website for many years and it contains a great deal of scientific and historical evidence which refute the archaic notions of the admittedly mediocre Charles Darwin who had not the slightest clue of proteins and DNA, which could not possibly have been synthesized by any naturalistic means. The quotations I cite in this website should be sufficient by themselves to continue promoting Darwin's fantasy. "It should not be taught in schools." - One scientist says

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

theevolutionfraud.wordpress.com

__________________________

No significant portion of scientists in any field register any dissent with the overwhelming consensus on evolution.

Weasel boy uses his weasel words and cheap parlor tricks, but they don't work.

 

[scruffy]

Many thousands of scientists, statisticians, physicists, biochemists, and biologists dissent from Darwinism. They have prepared a petition and have hundreds and hundreds of signatures expressing their positions that Darwinism is an abject failure. This breadth and depth of disagreement COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE if Darwinism were remotely as "factual" as its bitter, hateful proponents claim.

I have updated my website for many years and it contains a great deal of scientific and historical evidence which refute the archaic notions of the admittedly mediocre Charles Darwin who had not the slightest clue of proteins and DNA, which could not possibly have been synthesized by any naturalistic means. The quotations I cite in this website should be sufficient by themselves to continue promoting Darwin's fantasy. "It should not be taught in schools." - One scientist says

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

theevolutionfraud.wordpress.com

__________________________

What a bunch of horseshit.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't need an answer from you. It was rhetorical.

A trait shared by most if your posts.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Will you never shut up?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Will you never shut up?

No, not while science fiction is being palmed off as science.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No significant portion of scientists in any field register any dissent with the overwhelming consensus on evolution.

Weasel boy uses his weasel words and cheap parlor tricks, but they don't work.

How did you define "significant portion" and "overwhelming consensus"?

You also ran away from my question in this post, here it is again:

Have you ever held an erroneous belief? ever believed something was true then found out it was actually false? have you ever experienced that?

 

[Grumblenuts]

No, not while science fiction is being palmed off as science.

Okay, here's another rhetorical question for you to resist responding to.. if you dare..
What is the difference between science fiction and science?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A trait shared by most if your posts.

You're not a very honest guy. But this is expected. It's the only way for you to keep talking. Because your efforts to undermine a strong theory have failed and will always fail.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You're not a very honest guy. But this is expected. It's the only way for you to keep talking. Because your efforts to undermine a strong theory have failed and will always fail.

Your entire position here rests upon the argument from authority, that because a majority of people assert X and a minority assert NOT X, then X must therefore be true. That's not how I decide what to believe if I have any say in the matter.

Anybody can look at what the minority have to say about X and why they do not believe it. I've studied science and the history of science for far too long to place trust in the argument from authority.

You constantly reassure yourself with the vacuous "strongly supported theory" when it easy to look at history and see that that's not a guarantee of correctness, yet you believe it is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your entire position here rests upon the argument from authority, that because a majority of people assert X and a minority assert NOT X, then X must therefore be true.

A very stupid lie.

Thanks for making my point. I always appreciate a good assistant.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

A very stupid lie.

Lie? look here's just some of the things you've said in this vein:

undermine a strong theory
overwhelming consensus on evolution
such an overwhelming consensus of the evidence
the most well supported theory in history

Each of these was copied form posts you made in this thread and this seems to be the only argument you have, that because evolution is a popular belief it cannot possibly be wrong, that's ridiculous as any rational open minded person knows. The history of science is littered with examples that prove you wrong, popularity does not guarantee truth.

 

[Grumblenuts]

In Holmes ’ case, we can see apart from his crime solving, his frequent cocaine use also correlates with his depressive episodes, so the removal of drugs could help ease his swings.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lie?

Correct. What you did was make a universal statement that was false.

Posting a few quotes does not support the truth of your universal statement, given that it is a universal statement.

Again, even a cursory education in basic logic would prevent such elementary errors.

My assertion: a self consistent mathematical theory of a universe from nothing exists.

My evidence: the numerous published research articles and the resulting layman's book.

I don't see "I told you so" or "Baby Jesus says so" anywhere in there.

These arguments to authority, Mr. "I post youtube videos I never watched", are your jam. Not mine.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Correct. What you did was make a universal statement that was false.

Posting a few quotes does not support the truth of your universal statement, given that it is a universal statement.

Again, even a cursory education in basic logic would prevent such elementary errors.

My claim: a self consistent nathematocal theory of a universe from nothing exists.

My ecidence: the numerous published articles and the resulting layman's book.

I don't see "I told you so" or "Baby Jesus says so" anywhere in there.

Are you speaking of evolution now or origin of the universe?

Because you justify your devotion to evolution by saying "consensus" over and over as the quotes demonstrate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you speaking of evolution now or origin of the universe?

*origin of the universe

I defer to the evidence on evolution.

Go after it. Good luck. You'll need it. And some magic.

Given your series of demonstrably false statements.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

*origin of the universe

I defer to the evidence on evolution.

That's admirable but as I explained, theories stand or fall not by the strength of evidence in their favor but by their failure to match observations, faith alone isn't enough in science, falsification plays a role.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's admirable but as I explained, theories stand or fall not by the strength of evidence in their favor but by their failure to match observations,

The failure of observations to deviate from predictions is the empirical evidence.

A good example is mRNA testing. Evolutionary theory could stand on that alone.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The failure of observations to deviate from predictions is the empirical evidence.

A good example is mRNA testing. Evolutionary theory could stand on that alone.

See? all you can do is dwell on the supporting observations, that's all you care about, that's religion right there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

See? all you can do is dwell on the supporting observations

What educated people call "empirical evidence".

We'll be fine.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

@fort

What educated people call "empirical evidence".

Yes, that's what "empirical" means, here's some more for you, a chance to show off your erudition:

What inferences can we make by looking at these two specimins?

For example, what might their nearest common ancestor look like? might their DNA be similar? if we found these only as fossils, what might we infer?

www.usmessageboard.com