The Evolution Fraud

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Scientific Theory again is someone's theory until someone else proves it wrong.

And guess what doesn't prove them "wrong"? A lifetime of your whining and denial.

Don't believe me? Test the theory of gravity. Jump off of your roof 1000 times, document the results.

At one time the Earth was flat

*Was never a scientific theory, already embarrassing himself

then Chris Columbus, you know that racist proved you dumbasses wrong

*Chris Columbus knew the world was round, as did everyone else at the time, which is why he was paid to sail around it to find another route to Asia

Damn son, look at what religion has done to your brain... You would fail a 5th grade quiz...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what you are saying is that you cant prove that there isnt a God?

Correct, nobody could prove such a thing. You also cannot prove that pink unicorns do not make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

Faces are very asymmetrical. So that point is stupid.

Selection -- which is what acted on genes to make faces -- is not random, so that point is also stupid.

You are a font of idiocy. Do yourself a favor and never, ever post in the science section again, because you are embarrassing yourself badly.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Really, what the fuck is a "Theory".

Oops, you meant "scientific theory". Why not try looking it up, like a big boy?

Scientific Theory again is someone's theory until someone else proves it wrong. At one time the Earth was flat to shitfucks dumbasses like you, then Chris Columbus, you know that racist proved you dumbasses wrong, and again, so am I.

@andronim, your childish vulgarity is very convincing. It makes millions of people want to be as *smart* and *rational* as you so clearly are. Now why don't you demonstrate how *scientific* you are with a lecture on the science subject of your choice. Chemistry? Physics? Let's see what you know. Teach everyone something, you talk such condescending trash. Or is vulgarity and ignorance all you have? I suspect that it is.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Science is based on Theory until it is PROVEN factual. We keep seeing the dinosaur evolve from a slow moving reptile to a faster sauropod. Until we can figure out how to travel back in time, we will always have a theory of evolution, no facts.

Just FYI. There's a difference between an average theory and a scientific theory.
As for Evolution.....Paleontologists have a perfect example of evolution, it's called the horse. They have all the changing fossils down its lineage.
As for a deity (invisible fairy), the absurd way to look at any unknown is to, rather than continue studying the unknown, just raising both hands and saying...."the invisible thing in the sky did it!" Science doesn't have all the answers, but they have most and are continually trying to solve any unknowns.
Logic: Microbes gradually over millions of years, changing (evolving) and growing more complex.
Illogic/Ignorance: The invisible thingy in the sky whipped up everything.

Okay, PROVE there isnt a God......

I have definitive proof the gods don’t exist.

Prove I don’t.

Thanks.

Well we do know that Zues and Apollo even though were thought to be gods, never did anything for the Romans. But there was one God, who seems to put all those other gods to shame....

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Really, what the fuck is a "Theory".

Oops, you meant "scientific theory". Why not try looking it up, like a big boy?

Scientific Theory again is someone's theory until someone else proves it wrong. At one time the Earth was flat to shitfucks dumbasses like you, then Chris Columbus, you know that racist proved you dumbasses wrong, and again, so am I.

@andronim, your childish vulgarity is very convincing. It makes millions of people want to be as *smart* and *rational* as you so clearly are. Now why don't you demonstrate how *scientific* you are with a lecture on the science subject of your choice. Chemistry? Physics? Let's see what you know. Teach everyone something, you talk such condescending trash. Or is vulgarity and ignorance all you have? I suspect that it is.

There are 4 items for flight. This is not a theory. Thrust - makes the craft move forward. Drag - resistance applied to that craft to keep it from going to fast. Lift - enables the craft to go up. Gravity - keeps the craft from going up to far. Now, I doubt you knew any of this because most liberals dont understand flight, they just do what their liberal politicians tell them to do.
I love this jet, I worked on the avionics of that craft and many more of those over in Saudi Arabia. By the way, I was very astute when it came to mathematics and science.

 

[ChemEngineer]

@andronim, your childish vulgarity is very convincing. It makes millions of people want to be as *smart* and *rational* as you so clearly are. Now why don't you demonstrate how *scientific* you are with a lecture on the science subject of your choice. Chemistry? Physics? Let's see what you know. Teach everyone something, you talk such condescending trash. Or is vulgarity and ignorance all you have? I suspect that it is.

There are 4 (sic) items for flight. This is not a theory. Thrust - makes the craft move forward. Drag - resistance applied to that craft to keep it from going to (sic) fast. Lift - enables the craft to go up. Gravity - keeps the craft from going up to (sic) far. Now, I doubt you knew any of this because most liberals dont (sic) understand flight, they just do what their liberal politicians tell them to do.
I love this jet, I worked on the avionics of that craft and many more of those over in Saudi Arabia. By the way, I was very astute when it came to mathematics and science.

I see no evidence of your astutedness. You don't even understand the difference between "to" and "too." Your "science" lesson is as worthless as your grammar.

1. "There are 4 (sic) items for flight." (You should have spelled out "four.") "Thrust."

(No, flying squirrels simply jump from a branch. They have no "thrust.")

2. "Drag - resistance applied..."

(Applied by what? Only air. Air doesn't "care" if the "craft" goes "to (sic) fast." Nor does air resistance keep meteors from "going to (sic) fast."
Moreover missiles continue to fly beyond earth's atmosphere with zero resistance. Rockets flew to the moon and back, didn't they Mister Science.)

3. "Gravity - keeps the craft from going up to (sic) far."

(Mister Gravity doesn't want "craft" to go up "to (sic) far," now does he....)

Thank you for proving my point that you only shoot your mouth off about science, when in actuality, you know almost nothing.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

@andronim, your childish vulgarity is very convincing. It makes millions of people want to be as *smart* and *rational* as you so clearly are. Now why don't you demonstrate how *scientific* you are with a lecture on the science subject of your choice. Chemistry? Physics? Let's see what you know. Teach everyone something, you talk such condescending trash. Or is vulgarity and ignorance all you have? I suspect that it is.

There are 4 (sic) items for flight. This is not a theory. Thrust - makes the craft move forward. Drag - resistance applied to that craft to keep it from going to (sic) fast. Lift - enables the craft to go up. Gravity - keeps the craft from going up to (sic) far. Now, I doubt you knew any of this because most liberals dont (sic) understand flight, they just do what their liberal politicians tell them to do.
I love this jet, I worked on the avionics of that craft and many more of those over in Saudi Arabia. By the way, I was very astute when it came to mathematics and science.

I see no evidence of your astutedness. You don't even understand the difference between "to" and "too." Your "science" lesson is as worthless as your grammar.

1. "There are 4 (sic) items for flight." (You should have spelled out "four.") "Thrust."

(No, flying squirrels simply jump from a branch. They have no "thrust.")

2. "Drag - resistance applied..."

(Applied by what? Only air. Air doesn't "care" if the "craft" goes "to (sic) fast." Nor does air resistance keep meteors from "going to (sic) fast."
Moreover missiles continue to fly beyond earth's atmosphere with zero resistance. Rockets flew to the moon and back, didn't they Mister Science.)

3. "Gravity - keeps the craft from going up to (sic) far."

(Mister Gravity doesn't want "craft" to go up "to (sic) far," now does he....)

Thank you for proving my point that you only shoot your mouth off about science, when in actuality, you know almost nothing.

What the fuck do you think "jump" is? You didnt say fall, which wouldn't be thrust but then that would be gravity. Egad dont preach to me about science when you are full on retard....

And thanks for being the grammar police....to, too, two......


This guy had to thrust himself up and over the bar...

 

[ChemEngineer]

Your ignorance is surpassed by your childish vulgarity.
The squirrel does NOT "jump" to provide thrust. He pushes himself away from the branch. And now I push all further ignorant posts you write away by adding you to my lengthy Ignore List.

ciao DuFo

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Your ignorance is surpassed by your childish vulgarity.
The squirrel does NOT "jump" to provide thrust. He pushes himself away from the branch. And now I push all further ignorant posts you write away by adding you to my lengthy Ignore List.

ciao DuFo

Push away, I.E. Thrust.....stop now before you make more of a fool of yourself....

I think you need to stick to Chemistry 101 engineering, as you sure dont have a grasp on Physics or flight......

 

[LuckyDuck]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Science is based on Theory until it is PROVEN factual. We keep seeing the dinosaur evolve from a slow moving reptile to a faster sauropod. Until we can figure out how to travel back in time, we will always have a theory of evolution, no facts.

Just FYI. There's a difference between an average theory and a scientific theory.
As for Evolution.....Paleontologists have a perfect example of evolution, it's called the horse. They have all the changing fossils down its lineage.
As for a deity (invisible fairy), the absurd way to look at any unknown is to, rather than continue studying the unknown, just raising both hands and saying...."the invisible thing in the sky did it!" Science doesn't have all the answers, but they have most and are continually trying to solve any unknowns.
Logic: Microbes gradually over millions of years, changing (evolving) and growing more complex.
Illogic/Ignorance: The invisible thingy in the sky whipped up everything.

Really, what the fuck is a "Theory". Someone's idea of what MIGHT have happened. Just like back in the 60s' people thought Dino's were slow reptiles, now that "Theory" has changed until someone else can "PROVE" the past....

I would have guessed that in a science forum, there would be no need for foul language as foul language begins when arguments are lost. However, a common theory as opposed to a scientific theory is nothing more than a random "hunch." Scientific theory is supported by various accrued data from examination/testing. The only thing it lacks is a final definitive answer. In the case of the devoutly religious, no matter what answer scientists would come up with, they will always fall back on the age old: "a deity did it," response. The baseline reason for this falls more on the inherent fear of the finality of death and ones need to not end, but continue on in some way. Believing in a continuance after death, gives the individual some comfort. People look at other individuals dying and while consciously saying they know they are mortal and thus will die at some point, subconsciously maintain a denial of the fact. Having worked with the terminally-ill for years, one thing they have in common are some or all the five stages of grief or loss (they deny they are dying, they become angry, they bargain with the invisible deity, they enter a stage of depression and finally they accept their fate.
Well, I've strayed from the theory versus scientific theory, but the first half of what I entered is why there is an actual difference.
Normally I don't even go back to the "alerts" (especially replies), as I just generally jot down my response and move on, but on the topic of deity versus no deity, I thought I would go back and take a look this time. You have a good day.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Science is based on Theory until it is PROVEN factual. We keep seeing the dinosaur evolve from a slow moving reptile to a faster sauropod. Until we can figure out how to travel back in time, we will always have a theory of evolution, no facts.

Just FYI. There's a difference between an average theory and a scientific theory.
As for Evolution.....Paleontologists have a perfect example of evolution, it's called the horse. They have all the changing fossils down its lineage.
As for a deity (invisible fairy), the absurd way to look at any unknown is to, rather than continue studying the unknown, just raising both hands and saying...."the invisible thing in the sky did it!" Science doesn't have all the answers, but they have most and are continually trying to solve any unknowns.
Logic: Microbes gradually over millions of years, changing (evolving) and growing more complex.
Illogic/Ignorance: The invisible thingy in the sky whipped up everything.

Okay, PROVE there isnt a God......

As the primitives (tribal and pre-scientific societies) couldn't answer what happens when one dies and their tribal communities cried out for answers and feared death when seeing it happen, some in their communities/tribes, came up with the concept of an invisible "thing" that created everything and actually had a better life for them, after they died. Fearing death, it comforted the populace. Making it invisible, ensured that no one could show that such a thing didn't exist. That's all.
So, you can't prove something supernatural and invisible exists (atoms and molecules, while invisible to the naked eye, with current technology can now actually be seen, but your invisible fairy/deity, whatever you want to call it, can't. Very handy for those wishing to perpetuate the concept, but not truly realistic.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Science is based on Theory until it is PROVEN factual. We keep seeing the dinosaur evolve from a slow moving reptile to a faster sauropod. Until we can figure out how to travel back in time, we will always have a theory of evolution, no facts.

Just FYI. There's a difference between an average theory and a scientific theory.
As for Evolution.....Paleontologists have a perfect example of evolution, it's called the horse. They have all the changing fossils down its lineage.
As for a deity (invisible fairy), the absurd way to look at any unknown is to, rather than continue studying the unknown, just raising both hands and saying...."the invisible thing in the sky did it!" Science doesn't have all the answers, but they have most and are continually trying to solve any unknowns.
Logic: Microbes gradually over millions of years, changing (evolving) and growing more complex.
Illogic/Ignorance: The invisible thingy in the sky whipped up everything.

Okay, PROVE there isnt a God......

I have definitive proof the gods don’t exist.

Prove I don’t.

Thanks.

Well we do know that Zues and Apollo even though were thought to be gods, never did anything for the Romans. But there was one God, who seems to put all those other gods to shame....

Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Ra, Yahweh, God, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, they all fall into the category of the "invisible fairy or deity category,,' and no matter which deity you pray to, statistics/studies show that prayer works no better than chance. When someone prays for something and it occurs, the religious (regardless of whether they are Hindu or Christian, the followers of their particular religion, point and say..."see prayer works." When they pray and it doesn't go their way, they point and say...."you didn't pray hard enough or, it's not what their deity wanted for that person."
The Hindus have multiple deities and they pray and when their prayers are successful, they attribute the success to their prayer to the particular deity they chose in their basket of deities. Does that make their religion superior to yours, or any of the other over two hundred religions in existence? No. None are superior to the other, as they are in reality, just relying on chance...or modern technology to help them.

 

[ChemEngineer]

As the primitives (tribal and pre-scientific societies) couldn't answer what happens when one dies and their tribal communities cried out for answers and feared death when seeing it happen, some in their communities/tribes, came up with the concept of an invisible "thing" that created everything and actually had a better life for them, after they died. Fearing death, it comforted the populace. Making it invisible, ensured that no one could show that such a thing didn't exist. That's all.
So, you can't prove something supernatural and invisible exists (atoms and molecules, while invisible to the naked eye, with current technology can now actually be seen, but your invisible fairy/deity, whatever you want to call it, can't. Very handy for those wishing to perpetuate the concept, but not truly realistic.

I refer you to The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day and Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn.
They thoroughly address your haughty condescension gleaned from such haters as Richard Dawkins.
Then there is The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, and man others you seem to have missed.

Proof There Is No God

 

[Hollie]

As the primitives (tribal and pre-scientific societies) couldn't answer what happens when one dies and their tribal communities cried out for answers and feared death when seeing it happen, some in their communities/tribes, came up with the concept of an invisible "thing" that created everything and actually had a better life for them, after they died. Fearing death, it comforted the populace. Making it invisible, ensured that no one could show that such a thing didn't exist. That's all.
So, you can't prove something supernatural and invisible exists (atoms and molecules, while invisible to the naked eye, with current technology can now actually be seen, but your invisible fairy/deity, whatever you want to call it, can't. Very handy for those wishing to perpetuate the concept, but not truly realistic.

I refer you to The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day and Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn.
They thoroughly address your haughty condescension gleaned from such haters as Richard Dawkins.
Then there is The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, and man others you seem to have missed.

Proof There Is No God

Berlinski is one of the darlings of the religious extremists. He’s a total hack and relegated to the Disco’tute, where other Flat Earthers go to find irrelevance.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

#24: David Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

 

[LuckyDuck]

As the primitives (tribal and pre-scientific societies) couldn't answer what happens when one dies and their tribal communities cried out for answers and feared death when seeing it happen, some in their communities/tribes, came up with the concept of an invisible "thing" that created everything and actually had a better life for them, after they died. Fearing death, it comforted the populace. Making it invisible, ensured that no one could show that such a thing didn't exist. That's all.
So, you can't prove something supernatural and invisible exists (atoms and molecules, while invisible to the naked eye, with current technology can now actually be seen, but your invisible fairy/deity, whatever you want to call it, can't. Very handy for those wishing to perpetuate the concept, but not truly realistic.

I refer you to The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day and Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn.
They thoroughly address your haughty condescension gleaned from such haters as Richard Dawkins.
Then there is The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, and man others you seem to have missed.

Proof There Is No God

Hater? Interesting. I expressed no hatred towards those having a belief in an invisible thingy that supposedly, sees all, knows all and can do all (that would be a different topic to challenge). It is distressing that mankind has been killing each other over religion and their rules, for multiple millennium, when the only rule or law that should be followed would be a simple "do no harm to others."

 

[Vandalshandle]

I like to visit threads like this every couple of months. It is a nostalgic thing. It is like revisiting the 17th century, and overhearing a conversation at a New England fundamentalist church.

 

[LuckyDuck]

As the primitives (tribal and pre-scientific societies) couldn't answer what happens when one dies and their tribal communities cried out for answers and feared death when seeing it happen, some in their communities/tribes, came up with the concept of an invisible "thing" that created everything and actually had a better life for them, after they died. Fearing death, it comforted the populace. Making it invisible, ensured that no one could show that such a thing didn't exist. That's all.
So, you can't prove something supernatural and invisible exists (atoms and molecules, while invisible to the naked eye, with current technology can now actually be seen, but your invisible fairy/deity, whatever you want to call it, can't. Very handy for those wishing to perpetuate the concept, but not truly realistic.

I refer you to The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day and Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn.
They thoroughly address your haughty condescension gleaned from such haters as Richard Dawkins.
Then there is The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, and man others you seem to have missed.

Proof There Is No God

Berlinski is one of the darlings of the religious extremists. He’s a total hack and relegated to the Disco’tute, where other Flat Earthers go to find irrelevance.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

#24: David Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

Once in a great while someone comes along with the supposed argument of..."why hasn't the shark (insert creature name here) continued to evolve as it hasn't changed for supposedly millions of years. To that, one needs to understand that whichever of those creatures are named, they did evolve, until they achieved that form and performance to have reached their optimal performance in that state (i.e., the shark doesn't need to further advance, as it has reached its potential as a underwater predator).

 

[ChemEngineer]

Once in a great while someone comes along with the supposed argument of..."why hasn't the shark (insert creature name here) continued to evolve as it hasn't changed for supposedly millions of years. To that, one needs to understand that whichever of those creatures are named, they did evolve, until they achieved that form and performance to have reached their optimal performance in that state (i.e., the shark doesn't need to further advance, as it has reached its potential as a underwater predator).

"Reached their optimal performance." And WHO determines what is "optimal performance" and what is not? YOU? Please provide a very long list of species that today have reached their "optimal performance" and how you arrived at that assessment, which does NOT follow from the number of millions of years that they have remained unchanged. To claim that they're at "optimal performance" because they simply remain unchanged is begging the question.

In every nature show, the commentator ALWAYS remarks how any given animal "is perfectly adapted to its habitat or environment." All of them being "perfectly adapted" then don't need to further "evolve," do they. But alas, how does random mutation know when to stop? And the magic wand of "selection" - tiny steps, says Richard Dawkins. Tiny steps. They just keep adding up, except when you and others say they no longer did, for a few hundred million years....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once in a great while someone comes along with the supposed argument of..."why hasn't the shark (insert creature name here) continued to evolve as it hasn't changed for supposedly millions of years. To that, one needs to understand that whichever of those creatures are named, they did evolve, until they achieved that form and performance to have reached their optimal performance in that state (i.e., the shark doesn't need to further advance, as it has reached its potential as a underwater predator).

"Reached their optimal performance." And WHO determines what is "optimal performance" and what is not? YOU? Please provide a very long list of species that today have reached their "optimal performance" and how you arrived at that assessment, which does NOT follow from the number of millions of years that they have remained unchanged. To claim that they're at "optimal performance" because they simply remain unchanged is begging the question.

In every nature show, the commentator ALWAYS remarks how any given animal "is perfectly adapted to its habitat or environment." All of them being "perfectly adapted" then don't need to further "evolve," do they. But alas, how does random mutation know when to stop? And the magic wand of "selection" - tiny steps, says Richard Dawkins. Tiny steps. They just keep adding up, except when you and others say they no longer did, for a few hundred million years....

In every nature show, the commentator ALWAYS remarks how any given animal "is perfectly adapted to its habitat or environment."

They exaggerate.

All of them being "perfectly adapted" then don't need to further "evolve," do they. But alas, how does random mutation know when to stop?

It doesn't know. And it never stops.

 

[Silver Cat]

What idea about SARS-COV-2 origin can you suggest:
1) It was naturally evolved;
2) It was artificially created by humans;
3) It was directly and supernaturally created by God;
4) Something else?