The Evolution Fraud

[harmonica]

if you can't prove your claim that means it's bullshit
no one has to disprove there is a god

You wouldn't know proof if it bit you in the gluteus.

First, "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan
Second, I made no mention of God. You did, attempting to derail the thread, as Leftists do incessantly.
Third, if you knew ANYTHING about bioichemistry, you would address what I had to say, instead of regurgitating your inane Talking Points you picked up from haters like Richard Dawkins.

....also--why do you have to be an immature jackass?? why can't you discuss civilly/maturely??

 

[harmonica]

so you think a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer?

You put your cockamamey garbage on me and then mock me for what YOU said?
That is so typical of you Leftists.
THE SUBJECT is "the evolution fraud." Stay with that subject and stop making up nonsense.
Or is that too much to ask from you?

...typical---you can't answer the question, so you be a jerk
hahahahahhahaha

 

[Hollie]

They support their views with scientific evidence of Biology, Geology, Fossil Records and DNA

What supports your view?

1 times 10 to the 150th.....or something.

What does 1 times 10 to the 150th work out to be, Toddsterpatriot? Feel free to use a calculator, slide rule, or cheat.

Rightwinger, no Darwinists do NOT support their views with scientific evidence. They provide snippets and dibbles and dabs that have been shown to be utterly inadequate. But you regurgitate it dutifully without thinking. It's done everywhere, most particularly by the obedient, fascist Left. The impeachment clown show is a perfect example. Repeat what your handlers and CNN say and don't listen to anybody else.

It’s actually comical that the religious extremists use the same slogans: “Darwinists”, “evolutionists”. etc.

It’s as though the Henry Morris groupies are given a script that they dutifully read from.

But yes, the fact of biological evolution is among the most well documented scientific theories with multiple disciplines confirming the theory and facts.

 

[Hollie]

They support their views with scientific evidence of Biology, Geology, Fossil Records and DNA

What supports your view?

1 times 10 to the 150th.....or something.

What does 1 times 10 to the 150th work out to be, Toddsterpatriot? Feel free to use a calculator, slide rule, or cheat.

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

 

[ChemEngineer]

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Misplaced pomposity is stereotypical blathering that flies from the keyboards of everyone sucking Darwin's Pacifier while waving his Magic Selection Wand.

Firstly, (sic) the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance.

Explain the mechanism by which any protein originally forms via random mutation. Precisely HOW is the next amino acid added to any existing sequence to build different proteins or enzymes? And don't use Dawkins' silly "A>B>C>D."

However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

The subject is original polypeptide synthesis, required before the "biochemistry" can take place.

Yes it's all very complex, and your Magic Selection Wand doesn't do complex constructions. All it does is winnow ever so slightly at the random mutations, of which 99.9% are useless or detrimental.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

Obviously you know nothing about statistics. Whether you throw 100 coins in the air or separately, the odds remain 1 in 2 will come up heads. Now if you have something vastly more brilliant to say than the above, please proceed.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

I never heard of Henry Morris. You need to grow up and learn what chirality is, and the complex manner proteins fold, and the probability of forming peptide bonds, and what takes the place of one protein which is modified by mutation into something new and wonderful. The old process still must continue or the organism perishes. Darwin never anticipated such things as we now know to be true, and which you dismiss with your petty little boy talk.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

Sure sounds all "proven" and "factual" to all these scientists, doesn't it.

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“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 Herbert-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.)

“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”)

“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)

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The subject is original polypeptide synthesis, required before the "biochemistry" can take place

If you are a chemical engineer, i am the queen of england. You have no idea what any of those words in your post mean. What is with all of you fraud sock puppets spamming the science threads?

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

if you can't prove your claim that means it's bullshit
no one has to disprove there is a god

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.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

if you can't prove your claim that means it's bullshit
no one has to disprove there is a god

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it.......... I bet you graduated from the 2nd grade........, after 10 attempts.........

the typical dumbass response when you can't refute it

Why would I refute someone who completely misread my initial post. That would be like arguing with an idiot, those watching wouldn't be able to tell the difference.........

 

[Hollie]

These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Misplaced pomposity is stereotypical blathering that flies from the keyboards of everyone sucking Darwin's Pacifier while waving his Magic Selection Wand.

Firstly, (sic) the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance.

Explain the mechanism by which any protein originally forms via random mutation. Precisely HOW is the next amino acid added to any existing sequence to build different proteins or enzymes? And don't use Dawkins' silly "A>B>C>D."

However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

The subject is original polypeptide synthesis, required before the "biochemistry" can take place.

Yes it's all very complex, and your Magic Selection Wand doesn't do complex constructions. All it does is winnow ever so slightly at the random mutations, of which 99.9% are useless or detrimental.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

Obviously you know nothing about statistics. Whether you throw 100 coins in the air or separately, the odds remain 1 in 2 will come up heads. Now if you have something vastly more brilliant to say than the above, please proceed.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

I never heard of Henry Morris. You need to grow up and learn what chirality is, and the complex manner proteins fold, and the probability of forming peptide bonds, and what takes the place of one protein which is modified by mutation into something new and wonderful. The old process still must continue or the organism perishes. Darwin never anticipated such things as we now know to be true, and which you dismiss with your petty little boy talk.

“WE CONCLUDE – UNEXPECTEDLY – that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” – Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Illinois, Chicago, The American Naturalist, November 1992

“Darwin’s theory is no closer to resolution than ever.” – David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion

Sure sounds all "proven" and "factual" to all these scientists, doesn't it.

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“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 Herbert-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.)

“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”)

“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)

“One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.” (Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)

Is anyone expected to be impressed with your cut and paste “quotes”?

I did get a chuckle from dumping the charlatan Berlinski in the mix. He’s a hack relegated to the Disco’tute.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for 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):


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).

 

[ChemEngineer]

Well aren't you just "precious," Hollie.
You bring nothing to the discussion except your hysterical vitriol. I don't want to see any more of your nonsense, ever. To my Ignore List you go, because one should "Go from the presence of a foolish man."

ciao

 

[Hollie]

Obviously you know nothing about statistics. Whether you throw 100 coins in the air or separately, the odds remain 1 in 2 will come up heads. Now if you have something vastly more brilliant to say than the above, please proceed.

I wanted to focus on this gem of incompetence because a “chemical engineer” would know better. I explained it to you earlier: “Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.”

Tossing coins in the air is a nonsense comment. Biological organisms adapt and change. Coins do not.

 

[Hollie]

Well aren't you just "precious," Hollie.
You bring nothing to the discussion except your hysterical vitriol. I don't want to see any more of your nonsense, ever. To my Ignore List you go, because one should "Go from the presence of a foolish man."

ciao

Bye. Too bad you choose to abandon your failed arguments by running away, you know, like a girl.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They support their views with scientific evidence of Biology, Geology, Fossil Records and DNA

What supports your view?

1 times 10 to the 150th.....or something.

What does 1 times 10 to the 150th work out to be, Toddsterpatriot? Feel free to use a calculator, slide rule, or cheat.

Rightwinger, no Darwinists do NOT support their views with scientific evidence. They provide snippets and dibbles and dabs that have been shown to be utterly inadequate. But you regurgitate it dutifully without thinking. It's done everywhere, most particularly by the obedient, fascist Left. The impeachment clown show is a perfect example. Repeat what your handlers and CNN say and don't listen to anybody else.

What does 1 times 10 to the 150th work out to be, Toddsterpatriot?

What about to the -150th?

Is it this?

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are welcome to your faith

Just don’t pass it off as science

Nobody has more faith than Darwin's Priests waving his Magic Wand of Selection.
And you call THAT "science"?

They support their views with scientific evidence of Biology, Geology, Fossil Records and DNA

What supports your view?

1 times 10 to the 150th.....or something.

Evolution occurred .....there is no denying it

I don't deny it.

 

[ChemEngineer]

"Self-correcting Mechanism"

Godless Leftists insist with a condescending air of smug self-satisfaction, "Science has a mechanism of self-correction". Well duh! So does every human alive. So does every animal alive. So does every plant alive. How does this common trait of living organisms make "science" the ultimate, magisterial enterprise they pretend when in fact it is as ubiquitous as, and practiced by, bacteria ‽ (interrobang)

Moreover, science's "self-correcting mechanism" is arguably the slowest such mechanism known to man. For example, Haeckel's drawings, ostensibly demonstrating the evolutionary saw , "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," was exposed as a fraud in 1859 in a German court. Ernst Haeckel admitted that he faked the drawings because everyone faked science. His phony drawings continued to be published as "science" as recently as 2003.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Self-correcting Mechanism"

Godless Leftists insist with a condescending air of smug self-satisfaction, "Science has a mechanism of self-correction". Well duh! So does every human alive. So does every animal alive. So does every plant alive. How does this common trait of living organisms make "science" the ultimate, magisterial enterprise they pretend when in fact it is as ubiquitous as, and practiced by, bacteria ‽ (interrobang)

Moreover, science's "self-correcting mechanism" is arguably the slowest such mechanism known to man. For example, Haeckel's drawings, ostensibly demonstrating the evolutionary saw , "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," was exposed as a fraud in 1859 in a German court. Ernst Haeckel admitted that he faked the drawings because everyone faked science. His phony drawings continued to be published as "science" as recently as 2003.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

Religious horseshit goes in the Religion section.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Gee, no new posts on my thread that haven't been written by someone not on my Ignore List.
As Winston Churchill said, "If you stop to throw rocks at every dog that barks, you will never get to your destination."
"The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks." - Nigerian Proverb

 

[rightwinger]

Gee, no new posts on my thread that haven't been written by someone not on my Ignore List.
As Winston Churchill said, "If you stop to throw rocks at every dog that barks, you will never get to your destination."
"The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks." - Nigerian Proverb

Damn newbie already has an ignore list

He won’t last long

 

[ding]

The subject is original polypeptide synthesis, required before the "biochemistry" can take place

If you are a chemical engineer, i am the queen of england. You have no idea what any of those words in your post mean. What is with all of you fraud sock puppets spamming the science threads?

I’m pretty sure the he/she is a ChemE.

You? Not so much.

 

[Hollie]

Gee, no new posts on my thread that haven't been written by someone not on my Ignore List.
As Winston Churchill said, "If you stop to throw rocks at every dog that barks, you will never get to your destination."
"The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks." - Nigerian Proverb

Why would expect responses in a nonsense thread where you run away, screaming like a petulant child when your failed arguments come crashing to the ground in flames?

 

[ChemEngineer]

The subject is original polypeptide synthesis, required before the "biochemistry" can take place

If you are a chemical engineer, i am the queen of england. You have no idea what any of those words in your post mean. What is with all of you fraud sock puppets spamming the science threads?

I’m pretty sure the he/she is a ChemE.

You? Not so much.

Ding, I love ya. There is so much B.S. being splattered all over by these haters I don't want to bother even reading it much less responding. As Winston Churchill said, "If you stop to throw a rock at every barking dog, you'll never arrive at your destination."

I assembled many components in The Evolution Fraud and authored much of the narrative. I have read and critiqued books by Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan and communicated with both of them. Dawkins' best was to call me names. Sagan wrote me a letter asking me to buy his newest book. I never bought any of them! Hello library. But I did sell Sagan's letter on eBay for $125. What an Eco-Hypocrite he was, and Obamas still are, and Al Gore, and all the hyperemotional protesters who drive millions of miles, burning huge quantities of that fossil fuel they pretend to despise.....