Questions For Darwinists

[PoliticalChic]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

Quite a thoughtful post!

I doubt, though, you can expect cogent responses. The indoctrination of government school grads armors them with one simple response for any who don't toe the line: vituperation.

Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals "government school grads"?

"well-educated individuals" and "government school grads" are mutually exclusive categories.


Should you ever decide to move from the latter to the former, I will provide a reading syllabus.

Thank you for showing ChemEngineer I was not imaging being insulted by anti-evolutionists.

As for not being an ivy league graduate, I've met enough of them to not be impressed. I do have to admit though, some of the best pot I ever got was from ivy league students.

I speak of books, you of pot.

That's all anyone ever has to know to judge each of us.

Well you didn't mention books in this post you wrote about 'education'. Education, at least in my case, is not confined to books, there is also the real world waiting out there to teach you. You should step outside and join us someday.

"Education, at least in my case, is not confined to books,..."

I've seen your posts.....what you mean is

"Education, at least in my case, is in never related to books,"

 

[PoliticalChic]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

"well-educated individuals" and "government school grads" are mutually exclusive categories.

Should you ever decide to move from the latter to the former, I will provide a reading syllabus.

My Dear Chic, you are almost perfect. Years ago, I graduated from a California State University, which would seem to qualify me as a "government school grad." I am well-educated, I dare say, and you have considerable evidence of that fact through our personal communications as well as messaging on these foul boards.

MOST government school grads are not well-educated, but not all.
Love ya, Babe!

The term 'government school grad' is specifically meant for those who have accepted the indoctrination. And I have seen your work, and you do not fall into that description.


Here is a case in point: a Harvard grad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

Not sure what you mean.

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

There really is.

 

[alang1216]

"Education, at least in my case, is not confined to books,..."

I've seen your posts.....what you mean is

"Education, at least in my case, is in never related to books,"

Your insults would be better if your grammar was better.

 

[Hollie]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

“Nor are all biologists. They know better, too. The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts, or to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: unpersuasive. “Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
The God of the Gaps

You ''quoted'' from someone's blog. How unimpressive.

I have to assume your fake ''quote'' from the Nobel laureate was taken from Harun Yahya?

 

[PoliticalChic]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

Not sure what you mean.

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

There really is.

Actually, there isn't.

. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


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.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . 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.

 

[esalla]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

Not sure what you mean.

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

There really is.

Actually, there isn't.

. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


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.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . 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.

If that babble is true it means that God is actually retarded because he can not make anything correct the first time as 98 percent of all life is extinct.

There goes your theory

 

[Hollie]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

Not sure what you mean.

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

There really is.

Actually, there isn't.

. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


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.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . 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.

The fundie zealots faked “quotes” are hilarious.

The Dean Kenyon “quote” is one the fundie zealot dumps multiple times into multiple threads. Dean Kenyon is just another discredited

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

Dean H. Kenyon is professor emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, and one of the grand old men of the modern form of creationism known as Intelligent Design. Kenyon is, for instance, the author of the infamous Of Pandas and People (with Percival Davis), the textbook that laid the foundation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (after being quickly turned from a creationist book into an Intelligent Design book, which was possible since the views are the same). And yes, there is a pattern here – Kenyon, as most proponents of ID, are concerned with getting creationism into schools, writing textbooks, popular books (especially for children), and participating in debates. The ID movement isn’t, and has never been, about doing science. It should be mentioned that Kenyon still subscribes to young earth creationism.

Kenyon first started promoting creationism (the young earth variant) in the 1980s, calling it “scientific creationism” and trying to teach it in his classes at San Francisco State. That didn’t go down particularly well with his more scientifically minded colleagues. The fact that they determined that creationism couldn’t be taught as science didn’t exactly change Kenyon’s mind, so he continued teaching it in other courses, leading to some major controversies at the university (where Kenyon claimed that “objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science,” which is just a weasel phrase for “I should be allowed to teach my intuitions and convictions as being scientific regardless of whether they are backed up by evidence”). In the 1980s he became infamous for his involvement in the standard-setting McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard courtcases. In fact, Kenyon pulled out right before he was expected to testify in the first case. In the latter, Kenyon supplied an affidavit which ended up constituting the main part of the defense.
In the 1990s Kenyon became affiliated with the Discovery Institute. He is currently board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group.

Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous.


The second “quote” is another fraud. The “quote” actually comes from a science writer and was pulled, out of context, and dumped into another “quote”.

Just more of the dishonest tactics used by ID’iot creationist Harun Yahya groupies.

CREATION / EVOLUTION: Origin of the Species

“There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."

Gordon Rattray Taylor Award-winning science writer Former editor of the BBC's "Horizon" series The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Row, 1983, p. 60

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.

We haven't figured out how to observe over millions of years yet. Probably something to do with our much shorter lifespan.

 

[ChemEngineer]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

Not sure what you mean.

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

There really is.

Actually, there isn't.

. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


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.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . 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.

I added these to A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

There are scores of other citations all confirming the fraudulent nature of what atheists call "fact, fact, fact" and compare to gravity.

 

[esalla]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

Not sure what you mean.

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

There really is.

Actually, there isn't.

. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


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.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . 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.

I added these to A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

There are scores of other citations all confirming the fraudulent nature of what atheists call "fact, fact, fact" and compare to gravity.

Life and gravity are equal as their sources are both unknown. According to gravity as it is known the universe can not exist in it's present state

 

[PoliticalChic]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

Not sure what you mean.

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

There really is.

Actually, there isn't.

. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


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.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . 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.

I added these to A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

There are scores of other citations all confirming the fraudulent nature of what atheists call "fact, fact, fact" and compare to gravity.

I bet you are referring to this:

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski

 

[esalla]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

Not sure what you mean.

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

There really is.

Actually, there isn't.

. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


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.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . 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.

I added these to A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

There are scores of other citations all confirming the fraudulent nature of what atheists call "fact, fact, fact" and compare to gravity.

I bet you are referring to this:

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski

Gravity is not proven at all

 

[ChemEngineer]

PoliticalChic:

I bet you are referring to this:

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski

No, no. ""Gravity is only a theory too! If you think it is invalid, I invite you to take a leap off a high cliff, ha ha ha ha." Pseudoscientific pseudohumor from pseudothinkers.

 

[esalla]

[QUOTE="PoliticalChic, post: 25016538, member: 12394]

I bet you are referring to this:

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski

No, no. ""Gravity is only a theory too! If you think it is invalid, I invite you to take a leap off a high cliff, ha ha ha ha." Pseudoscientific pseudohumor from pseudothinkers.
[/QUOTE]
According to gravity as the theory exist today the universe can not be expanding, since it is gravity is quite wrong

 

[Silver Cat]

Any idea of "Intelligent Design" must explain, why "supernatural bioengineers" work so slowly - 750Mb of the human genome were "developed" in billions years.
Even the simplest forms of artificial selection (say nothing about bioengineering) create great morphological diversity in the very short time.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Any idea of "Intelligent Design" must explain, why "supernatural bioengineers" work so slowly - 750Mb of the human genome were "developed" in billions years.
Even the simplest forms of artificial selection (say nothing about bioengineering) create great morphological diversity in the very short time.

Make up your mind. Was it "so slowly," or "the very short time" - "billions years"?

There were no "supernatural bioengineers." There is only Nature's God, specified in our Declaration of Independence, celebrated this very day. Nature's God has His own timetable. We don't "need to explain" anything. Nature's God is incomprehensible. Does an earthworm comprehend people driving past in their cars? We are as earthworms.

Incidentally, sperm whales have the largest brains of any animal on earth. Why aren't they smarter than we are since Darwinists have argued that Lucy, allegedly our first humanoid, had a brain about one fifth the size of ours and we "evolved" our larger brain to be so much smarter. Why aren't sperm whales smarter?

 

[ding]

No, no. ""Gravity is only a theory too! If you think it is invalid, I invite you to take a leap off a high cliff, ha ha ha ha." Pseudoscientific pseudohumor from pseudothinkers.

According to gravity as the theory exist today the universe can not be expanding, since it is gravity is quite wrong

I like how you can hear something that is totally true and then misapply it to state something that is totally false. It's a real talent.

 

[esalla]

Any idea of "Intelligent Design" must explain, why "supernatural bioengineers" work so slowly - 750Mb of the human genome were "developed" in billions years.
Even the simplest forms of artificial selection (say nothing about bioengineering) create great morphological diversity in the very short time.

Make up your mind. Was it "so slowly," or "the very short time" - "billions years"?

There were no "supernatural bioengineers." There is only Nature's God, specified in our Declaration of Independence, celebrated this very day. Nature's God has His own timetable. We don't "need to explain" anything. Nature's God is incomprehensible. Does an earthworm comprehend people driving past in their cars? We are as earthworms.

Incidentally, sperm whales have the largest brains of any animal on earth. Why aren't they smarter than we are since Darwinists have argued that Lucy, allegedly our first humanoid, had a brain about one fifth the size of ours and we "evolved" our larger brain to be so much smarter. Why aren't sperm whales smarter?

Why would you consider bioengineering to be supernatural when we do that now? Why couldn't God have done it then?

You do know that bioengineering for Mars is happening now I presume