Scientists Refuting Darwinism

[The Sage of Main Street]

Neanderthals are known to contribute up to 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, depending on what region of the word your ancestors come from, and modern humans who lived about 40,000 years ago have been found to have up to 6-9% Neanderthal DNA

If we all came from the same tribe of humans that means early humans left Africa, got lighter and fucked other species.

We all came from the same black humanoids. Whites weren't here back in the beginning.

View attachment 766608We are all related.

The Hidden Past Is Prologue

Whites were more intelligent, flexible, and energetically searching for solutions long before they had white skin.

The Neanderthal frequently abducted Cro-Magnon women. Though the pure Neanderthal were wiped out because of their lack of intelligence, the hybrids managed to survive and drove the Cro-Magnon into the Caucasus. A prehistoric Mongol invasion drove the Whites back to Europe, where, having undergone a kind of Renaissance, they were able to conquer or drive out the hybrids.

 

[Hollie]

No surprise here. But just watch Darwin's Cult make up nonsense to try an end run.​

​

_________________________________________________________​

​

​

On Origin of Life, Chemist James Tour Has Successfully Called These Researchers’ Bluff​

Brian Miller
October 31, 2023, 1:57 PM

Image source: James Tour via YouTube.
David Klinghoffer and Tova Forman previously wrote about Rice University chemist James Tour’s 60-day challenge to leading origin-of-life researchers to demonstrate that the field had substantively advanced in the past seventy years (here, here). Tour offered to remove all his videos on the topic if three leading experts agreed that any of five fundamental problems had been solved:

• Linking of amino acids into chains (aka polypeptides)
• Linking of nucleotides into RNA molecules
• Linking of simple sugars (aka monosaccharides) into chains known as polysaccharides
• Origin of biological information
• Assembly of components into a cell

Tour issued this challenge in response to the many false claims made by YouTubers, such as Dave Farina, about how these hurdles to life’s origin had been fully addressed. The deadline has expired, and no one has presented solutions to any of the problems.

The Rules​

For the first three problems, Tour allowed origin-of-life researchers to assume a chemical mixture started with amino acids, nucleotides, or sugars with the same handedness (aka enantiomerically pure). For instance, all the amino acids were left-handed as required in modern proteins. For the first problem, participants needed to detail how chains of just two amino acids — aspartic acid and lysine — could have formed with the correct bonds. For the second problem, proposed solutions needed to describe how nucleotides could have linked into chains with less than 2 percent of the wrong linkages. And for the third, proposals needed to explain how molecules of the simple sugar glucose could have properly joined in high yields.

For the fourth problem, researchers could assume that the first three challenges had been solved. They only needed to explain how amino acids, nucleotides, or simple sugars could have linked together in the correct order to contain the required functional information to perform some biologically relevant task. For the fifth problem, researchers could assume that all cellular components were available in abundance. They only needed to explain how the biological building blocks could have assembled into a functional cell. Proposed solutions for all the problems had to rely only on chemistry that could have occurred on the early Earth.

The Implications of Failure​

The failure of any origin-of-life expert to propose a solution to even one of the five problems has dire implications for the field. Tour allowed origins researchers to assume unrealistically favorable starting conditions. The hurdles are collosal for life’s constituent molecules to form in sufficiently high concentrations and purities to allow for even the slightest possibility of their linking into proteins, RNA, or complex polysaccharides (here, here). In addition, any cellular component that formed on the early Earth would have decomposed long before finding its way to the staging ground for an aspiring cell. Consequently, even if every problem were fully solved, life’s genesis would still face the insurmountable hurdle of transporting the components of life to the same microscopic environment.

YouTubers and other defenders of the secular faith of scientific materialism have confidently asserted that scientists are steadily unraveling the mystery of life’s origin. Yet Tour called on leading experts to demonstrate whether they had achieved any real progress in answering any of the most fundamental questions. None could rise to the challenge.

At some point, both the scientific community and the public will need to recognize that the lack of progress cannot be explained by a lack of serious effort by highly competent scientists but by the philosophical assumptions blinding them from seeing the truth staring them in the face. The answer to life’s origin does not reside in the fields of physics and chemistry but in the mind behind our universe.

Wait. You mean this James Tour? Another of the Disco’tute charlatans you flail your Pom Poms for.

Really, Bunky. The loons and frauds you use to prop up your religious extremism is concerning.

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

Tour is a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s silly petition A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, making him one of a very small number of nationally prominent researchers among the signatories as well as the even smaller number of those who seem to have been actually aware of what they were signing. Indeed, even Tour himself has said that “I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.”

Despite demonstrably failing to grasp the basics of evolution (see below), Tour is nevertheless confident in his analysis: “if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.” Of course, evolution doesn’t make molecules to a specification, so his comparison is irrelevant, but it is very instructive that Tour doesn’t realize that. Now, he did follow the previous claim up with admitting that “I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you.” That hasn’t stopped him from offering his uninformed opinions (“egregious idiocy”) on the topic on numerous occasions – apparently doing so is justified because other synthetic chemistry experts he has talked with don’t claim to understand everything about evolution either (yes, the unstated premises in that piece of reasoning are somewhat hard to identify; more details about Tour’s ignorance here). So, Tour has for instance claimed that he felt the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete, and that he finds it hard to believe that nature can produce the machinery of cells through random processes, which is not what the theory of evolution says but which would also, independently of that fundamental error, have amounted to a reasonably clear example of a named fallacy. Taking a cue from standard creationist materials, Tour also claims that “[f]rom what I can see, microevolution is a fact” and “there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.” But of course, like the creationists who apparently supply him with his talking points, Tour offers no suggestion for what mechanism could possibly and magically prevent microevolutionary changes from accumulating into macroevolutionary changes over time – besides, one would think that if his considerations based on his own field were relevant (they are not), they would apply equally well to microevolution. We strongly suspect the issue is, for Tour, not ultimately a matter of science or evidence (Tour is, as you’d expect, a religious fundamentalist).

He also thinks that brave, maverick scientists who question the consensus about evolution are persecuted in academia by cabals of skeptics. Suffice to say: there are better explanations for why you won’t find respected biologists being confused by the questions that confuse James Tour in the field, but we are hardly surprised that when the competing explanations for his observations are “maybe I am wrong about a field I don’t understand” and “I am correct in my claims about a field I don’t understand but it doesn’t look that way because there is a conspiracy to suppress the scientists who say what I do,” James Tour is the kind of person who opts for the latter.
At least creationists seem to have been very excited to have him onboard. Tour has also contributed chapters to creationist and anti-science books detailing his lack of understanding of the theory of evolution and drawing silly conclusions from that, as well as given numerous talks on religion, prayer and how the theory of evolution cannot explain abiogenesis, which it doesn’t purport to do. He also contributed e.g. to the 2018 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith: Tear Down that Wall on how to get faith to take some control back over science.

Diagnosis: As opposed to the vast, vast majority of the signatories to the Discovery Petition, James Tour is indeed a scientist. He is, of course, not a biologist and willfully fails to understand the fundamentals of evolution, but a modicum of confidence, religious fundamentalism, Dunning-Kruger and general ignorance make for a forceful combo. Currently, he is apparently also being persecuted, insofar as people have criticized him for passing desperately silly and ignorance-fueled judgments on scientists and scientific field he doesn’t understand.

 

[sealybobo]

The Hidden Past Is Prologue

Whites were more intelligent, flexible, and energetically searching for solutions long before they had white skin.

The Neanderthal frequently abducted Cro-Magnon women. Though the pure Neanderthal were wiped out because of their lack of intelligence, the hybrids managed to survive and drove the Cro-Magnon into the Caucasus. A prehistoric Mongol invasion drove the Whites back to Europe, where, having undergone a kind of Renaissance, they were able to conquer or drive out the hybrids.

I love it when people who don't believe in evolution ask "how come no other animal evolved into smart creatures like us. Like monkey's and apes. How come?

You answered their question. Some other species did and we wiped them out.

And I'm not completely sure we all came from the same tribe. Perhaps blacks and asians...Nope. I can't do that. Just because that's what makes sense to me I can't argue with science that says all humans on earth now came from blacks in Africa. How we turned into whites, asians, etc. I'll never understand. And how we came up with all our completely different languages and alphabets. Amazing shit huh?

 

[scruffy]

Complexity is a whole science unto itself.

In complex systems analysis, we consider that the black box has too many pieces to conveniently take apart and put back together again - so instead we look for "signatures" in the behavior of the UUT. This is the general pattern:

In any given "isolated system", things can get either more complex or less complex. Think for example, of a protein molecule. It can bond with another long chain polypeptide, to create a result of even greater complexity. Or, it can be broken up into individual peptides, which are smaller and less complex in the sense that they have fewer folding configurations.

Whenever things get more complex they violate the second law of thermodynamics, because the second law is "dissipative", whereas self organizing systems are "reactive". When you put both behaviors together in the same beaker you get a "reaction-diffusion" process, and you can check the spectral signature to see if there is any criticality. If there is, there will be a fractal signature.

The key to understanding RD is that the long range interactions change the underlying statistical distributions. From a chemical standpoint the result is very much like using a catalyst, which can both speed up an existing reaction and favor an entirely new reaction.

From a math standpoint the key concept is the moments, which are kind of-sort of like derivatives. In dynamic systems and control theory the derivatives matter, in stochastic systems it"s the moments. We can for example design a feedback system where the action is on the generator itself rather than on any coupling constants. "Bonding" is a very general concept that applies not only to the resulting shapes but also to the idea of taking players out of the game and moving them around on the game board.

One quick look at the statistics of life, is "enough" to ascertain that the distributions aren't "normal". For an introduction to what they really are and how they work, you can study "information geometry". What happens in information geometry is, you "parametrize" a family of distributions, and use them as a basis for describing what you see. So for instance, a normal distribution can be parametrized by 3 numbers, height, width, and center point. The entire set of normal distributions can therefore be described by a 3-d mapping, and any other distribution can be approximated as a linear combination of normals. "A" distribution therefore becomes a set of points in 3-space, and can itself be treated using the standard statistical methods of densities and etc.

For example - as part of our analysis of Covid, we look at how the densities change over time. No part of it is "gaussian", but with density napping we can look at it as if it were. This way, we can clearly see the conditions that relate to changes in behavior. Scientists can predict with reasonable certainty when the next outbreak is expected, because viruses have population dynamics just like humans do.

 

[surada]

The Hebrew Bible is the literature of faith, not of scientific observation or historical demonstration.

 

[badger2]

Complexity is a whole science unto itself.

In complex systems analysis, we consider that the black box has too many pieces to conveniently take apart and put back together again - so instead we look for "signatures" in the behavior of the UUT. This is the general pattern:

In any given "isolated system", things can get either more complex or less complex. Think for example, of a protein molecule. It can bond with another long chain polypeptide, to create a result of even greater complexity. Or, it can be broken up into individual peptides, which are smaller and less complex in the sense that they have fewer folding configurations.

Whenever things get more complex they violate the second law of thermodynamics, because the second law is "dissipative", whereas self organizing systems are "reactive". When you put both behaviors together in the same beaker you get a "reaction-diffusion" process, and you can check the spectral signature to see if there is any criticality. If there is, there will be a fractal signature.

The key to understanding RD is that the long range interactions change the underlying statistical distributions. From a chemical standpoint the result is very much like using a catalyst, which can both speed up an existing reaction and favor an entirely new reaction.

From a math standpoint the key concept is the moments, which are kind of-sort of like derivatives. In dynamic systems and control theory the derivatives matter, in stochastic systems it"s the moments. We can for example design a feedback system where the action is on the generator itself rather than on any coupling constants. "Bonding" is a very general concept that applies not only to the resulting shapes but also to the idea of taking players out of the game and moving them around on the game board.

One quick look at the statistics of life, is "enough" to ascertain that the distributions aren't "normal". For an introduction to what they really are and how they work, you can study "information geometry". What happens in information geometry is, you "parametrize" a family of distributions, and use them as a basis for describing what you see. So for instance, a normal distribution can be parametrized by 3 numbers, height, width, and center point. The entire set of normal distributions can therefore be described by a 3-d mapping, and any other distribution can be approximated as a linear combination of normals. "A" distribution therefore becomes a set of points in 3-space, and can itself be treated using the standard statistical methods of densities and etc.

For example - as part of our analysis of Covid, we look at how the densities change over time. No part of it is "gaussian", but with density napping we can look at it as if it were. This way, we can clearly see the conditions that relate to changes in behavior. Scientists can predict with reasonable certainty when the next outbreak is expected, because viruses have population dynamics just like humans do.

Your faulty reasoning for Covid is that it's impossible to predict outbreaks from a virus that may have been synthesized in a lab. In addition, the natural host has not been found. Esoterica will confound predictions every time.

 

[scruffy]

Your faulty reasoning for Covid is that it's impossible to predict outbreaks from a virus that may have been synthesized in a lab. In addition, the natural host has not been found. Esoterica will confound predictions every time.

No. The population dynamics are usually inherent in the genome. They can sometimes be modified by environmental factors but the basic plan is in the genes.

Even lowly viruses have population dynamics. Almost every biological molecule is regulated, it's very rare to find one that isn't. Viruses are clever because they attach to the dynamic of the host, but they're still directing traffic.

Here for example is the Dengue virus:

Principles of dengue virus evolvability derived from genotype-fitness maps in human and mosquito cells

Distinct selective landscapes in mosquito and human cells shape dengue virus genetic diversity and highlight mechanisms of host adaptation in arboviruses.

elifesciences.org

 

[badger2]

No. The population dynamics are usually inherent in the genome. They can sometimes be modified by environmental factors but the basic plan is in the genes.

Even lowly viruses have population dynamics. Almost every biological molecule is regulated, it's very rare to find one that isn't. Viruses are clever because they attach to the dynamic of the host, but they're still directing traffic.

Here for example is the Dengue virus:

Principles of dengue virus evolvability derived from genotype-fitness maps in human and mosquito cells

Distinct selective landscapes in mosquito and human cells shape dengue virus genetic diversity and highlight mechanisms of host adaptation in arboviruses.

elifesciences.org

No, you can't then conveniently move to dengue, a different virus from SARS1 &2. The esoteric factor of SARS2 throws a monkey-wrench into your evolutionary reasoning because you are always already compromised by the pre-emptive violence of this American-assisted Chinese communist virus and its accompanying esoterica.

Not only does the theologian and physicist of the OP in the thread "Critique of Intelligent Design" figure into Derrida's Khora, the Khora is also part of this viral trajectory we are discussing in this thread. Recall that in the CoID OP, we have already mentioned the proximities between the OP theologian, NIH's Francis Collins, and the Jesuit Elf, Anthony Fauci.

In our critique of intelligent design, we will also show how the physicist Hedin in the CoID OP uses the Khora with which to establish his myth in his book, Canceled Science.

'Nature is not opposed to invention, invention being part of Nature itself. Nature is opposed to Myth.'
(Deleuze)

'When they explicitly touch on myth, the propositions of the Timaeus all seem ordered by a (double motif [italics]). In its very duplicity, it would constitute the philosopheme of the mytheme such as we just saw it being installed, from Plato to Hegel.

1. On the one hand, myth derives from play. Hence it will not be taken seriously. Thus Plato warns Aristotle, he gets in ahead of the serious objection of Aristotle and makes the same use of the opposition play/seriousness (paidia/spoude'), in the name of philosophical seriousness.

2. But on the other hand, in the order of becoming, when one cannot lay claim to a firm and stable (logos [it.]), when one must make do with the probable, then myth is the done thing (de rigueur [it.]); it is rigor.

These two motifs are necessarily interwoven, which gives the game its seriousness and the seriousness its play. It's not forbidden and not difficult to discourse (dialogisasthai, 59c) on the subject of bodies when one seeks only probability. One can then make do with the form (idean) of probable myths (ton eikoton mython).'
(Derrida, Khora)

The Derridean Khora intercepts the projected esoterica/myths of SARS1 & 2.

 

[surada]

Had we known about DNA back then we wouldn't even know the name Darwin now. It proves him wrong...

There are hundreds of creation myths.

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Libby von H]

Moderator said I should post my thoughts before quoting others'.
Here they are.
1. The Godless Left preaches Darwinism under claim of "fact, fact, fact." That is utterly preposterous in view of the many tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of biochemists, biologists, medical doctors, mathematicians, statisticians, computer experts and other learned people who have studied and continue to study how impossible is the claim of random mutations transmogrifying water dripping on rocks to human beings.

2. NOBODY argues that "gravity is as proven as evolution."
NOBODY claims that gravity is "only a theory."

3. This large number of highly educated people argue very persuasively that Darwin's archaic nonsense is just that. I'm with them. I've studied it extensively.

The Evolution Fraud

Truth never lost ground by enquiry.- WILLIAM PENN, Some Fruits of Solitude


"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." - (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

"When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it." - (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

"Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe." - (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." -(Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology")

"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."- (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."
- (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, "It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.")


"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology." - (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation."-
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." - (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked." - (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."- (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." - (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)


"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it." - (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." - (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)


"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." - (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

"The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."- (Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse of the University of Paris and past-president of the French Academy of Science)

"It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one." - (Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University)

"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' " - (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. - (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)


"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."- (Charles Darwin, "The origin of species by means of natural selection")


"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted." - (Dr. T.H Morgan)

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences." (Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence." - (Dr. R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.)

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." - (Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:" A Study in Probabilities (1985)

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."(Dr. P. L - emoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937)

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." - (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, "Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316")

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." - (Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)


"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."
-(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pg. 418.)

"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." - (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups."- (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Transformation is a fairy tale for adults." - (Dr. Jean Rostand, French biologist)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." - (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." - (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." -(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." - (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." - (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." -(Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." -(Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" -(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

"Evolution is faith, a religion." - (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia."- (Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology,"pg. 23)


"Chance renders evolution impossible." - (Dr. James Coppedge)

"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." - (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science." - (Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. - (Dr. Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177)

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle." - Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.)

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science." - (George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake." - (Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution." - (Sir Cecil Wakely)

"It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species." -(Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.)

I cut off hundreds more quotes of a similar nature.

Darwin made the most devastating critique of the the theory by hanstringing the nature of a brain/mind that comes from lower animals

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
[To William Graham 3 July 1881]”​

― Charles Darwin

It was enough for Darwinian Atheist Nagel to call the whole thing into question

Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagel​

 

[sealybobo]

Moderator said I should post my thoughts before quoting others'.
Here they are.
1. The Godless Left preaches Darwinism under claim of "fact, fact, fact." That is utterly preposterous in view of the many tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of biochemists, biologists, medical doctors, mathematicians, statisticians, computer experts and other learned people who have studied and continue to study how impossible is the claim of random mutations transmogrifying water dripping on rocks to human beings.

2. NOBODY argues that "gravity is as proven as evolution."
NOBODY claims that gravity is "only a theory."

3. This large number of highly educated people argue very persuasively that Darwin's archaic nonsense is just that. I'm with them. I've studied it extensively.

The Evolution Fraud

Truth never lost ground by enquiry.- WILLIAM PENN, Some Fruits of Solitude


"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." - (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

"When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it." - (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

"Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe." - (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, "Science Finds God," Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." -(Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology")

"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."- (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."
- (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, "It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.")


"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology." - (Dr. Arthur Koestler)

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation."-
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." - (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked." - (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."- (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." - (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)


"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it." - (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." - (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)


"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." - (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

"The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."- (Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse of the University of Paris and past-president of the French Academy of Science)

"It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one." - (Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University)

"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' " - (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. - (Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981)


"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."- (Charles Darwin, "The origin of species by means of natural selection")


"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted." - (Dr. T.H Morgan)

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences." (Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence." - (Dr. R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.)

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." - (Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:" A Study in Probabilities (1985)

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."(Dr. P. L - emoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937)

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." - (Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, 1881, 3 July, "Life and Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, 316")

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." - (Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)


"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."
-(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pg. 418.)

"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." - (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups."- (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Transformation is a fairy tale for adults." - (Dr. Jean Rostand, French biologist)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." - (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." - (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." -(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." - (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." - (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." -(Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." -(Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" -(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

"Evolution is faith, a religion." - (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia."- (Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology,"pg. 23)


"Chance renders evolution impossible." - (Dr. James Coppedge)

"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." - (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science." - (Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)

"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. - (Dr. Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177)

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century...The origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle." - Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.)

"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything or at least they are not science." - (George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.)

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake." - (Dr. Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution." - (Sir Cecil Wakely)

"It's impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species." -(Dr. Richard Goldschmt, evolutionist. Founder of the "Hopeful Monster" theory.)

I cut off hundreds more quotes of a similar nature.

You are quoting someone and not even spelling their name right. It's

Goldschmidt​

He received his Ph.D. under Bütschli in 1902, studying development of the trematode Polystomum
He thought that small gradual changes could not bridge the divide between microevolution and macroevolution.
Goldschmidt believed that the neo-Darwinian view of gradual accumulation of small mutations was important but could account for variation only within species (microevolution) and was not a powerful enough source of evolutionary novelty to explain new species. Instead he believed that large genetic differences between species required profound "macro-mutations", a source for large genetic changes (macroevolution) which once in a while could occur as a "hopeful monster".

Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a "non-Darwinian"; however, he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He veered from the synthetic theory only in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation.

Modern science says all things are related.

Not only do plants and animals share a common ancestor, they are more closely related to one another than probably about 90% of all the rest of life on earth. Plants and animals are both eukaryotes, and that immediately makes them more closely related to one another than either is to all the bacteria and archaea.

They must have debunked his theories. His theories didn't stand up to scientific consensus.

 

[Dagosa]

You are quoting someone and not even spelling their name right. It's

Goldschmidt​

He received his Ph.D. under Bütschli in 1902, studying development of the trematode Polystomum
He thought that small gradual changes could not bridge the divide between microevolution and macroevolution.
Goldschmidt believed that the neo-Darwinian view of gradual accumulation of small mutations was important but could account for variation only within species (microevolution) and was not a powerful enough source of evolutionary novelty to explain new species. Instead he believed that large genetic differences between species required profound "macro-mutations", a source for large genetic changes (macroevolution) which once in a while could occur as a "hopeful monster".

Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a "non-Darwinian"; however, he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He veered from the synthetic theory only in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation.

Modern science says all things are related.

Not only do plants and animals share a common ancestor, they are more closely related to one another than probably about 90% of all the rest of life on earth. Plants and animals are both eukaryotes, and that immediately makes them more closely related to one another than either is to all the bacteria and archaea.

They must have debunked his theories. His theories didn't stand up to scientific consensus.

No one cares…..

 

[sealybobo]

No one cares…..

Chemengineer must or he wouldn't have started this topic. Buzz off.

 

[Dagosa]

Chemengineer must or he wouldn't have started this topic. Buzz off.

Typical science illiterates who dismiss science while having no idea what it is, sounds like ChemEngineer. And, he lies about his knowledge which is typical of deniers. Frauds like he and you who side with him need exposure.

 

[Dagosa]

Chemengineer must or he wouldn't have started this topic. Buzz off.

Btw, a reminder….ChemEngineer is a total fraud….

 

[scruffy]

Who revived this idiotic thread?

 

[Dagosa]

sealybobo

Btw, a reminder….ChemEngineer is a total fraud….

Who revived this idiotic thread?

You’re right. Chem Engineer is a always starting idiotic threads.

 

[sealybobo]

sealybobo


You’re right. Chem Engineer is a always starting idiotic threads.

Shut up Chris P

 

[Resnic]

There have always been people who denied Darwin's theories and ideas.

But aside from the idea of he is right or wrong I find it interesting to see such a huge increase of people who try to prove Darwin as wrong and a fraud also coincides with the same time so many people are also saying a tranny woman is a real woman, that earth is static and has never had changes in its environment up until recently when climate change is killing the planet, the idiocy of people who think earth is flat and so on.

The past few years we have seen a big up turn in denying science and facts. So was Darwin actually correct and is just a victim or absolute morons and agendas?

 

[Dagosa]

There have always been people who denied Darwin's theories and ideas.

But aside from the idea of he is right or wrong I find it interesting to see such a huge increase of people who try to prove Darwin as wrong and a fraud also coincides with the same time so many people are also saying a tranny woman is a real woman, that earth is static and has never had changes in its environment up until recently when climate change is killing the planet, the idiocy of people who think earth is flat and so on.

The past few years we have seen a big up turn in denying science and facts. So was Darwin actually correct and is just a victim or absolute morons and agendas?

I find it hilarious that people discuss Darwinian theories as to whether they are right or wrong. Theories are all neither right or wrong. They are call theories for a reason. Darwin was neither right or wrong. But, he offered up many ideas that are the foundation of how we understand evolution. Without his work, modern medicine wouldn’t be saving thousands of lives a year. Did some of his theories evolve and change as new evidence came to bear ? Of course, that’s what theories are. They are stepping stones to better understanding. They are NEITHER RIGHT OR WRONG.

They are simply explanations based upon the evidence we have at the time….and they always subject to change.