Voting For Scientific Truth????

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
6. Jonathan Wells makes some interesting points about accepting consensus rather than actual data:

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”



My answer: it is just as daunting to question Darwin as it is to openly support Trump, and for exactly the same reasons.
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
3,889
Reaction score
1,224
Points
198
You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
Ummm... Yes. But I don't see the point is posting it. You have already made up your mind that there is none. So... What would be the point?

This should be in the religion threads... Not scientific.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
Ummm... Yes. But I don't see the point is posting it. You have already made up your mind that there is none. So... What would be the point?

This should be in the religion threads... Not scientific.

"You have already made up your mind that there is none."

No, scientists have attested to exactly that.

Plus, the fact that you couldn't find any.

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275


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


"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

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





"This should be in the religion threads... Not scientific."

When you say, erroneously, that there is religion being offered, you are simply proving that you have accepted the methods of government school: ridicule the opposition to silence it.

You should be ashamed.
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
3,889
Reaction score
1,224
Points
198
When you say, erroneously, that there is religion being offered, you are simply proving that you have accepted the methods of government school: ridicule the opposition to silence it.

You should be ashamed.
Ok... Look at all the breeds of dogs we have. The big ones, the little ones... We breed them to look a certain way, with certain attributes. That is nothing more than "artificial Darwinism". It's not natural selection, it's forced selection, but it proves the theory. Things can and will change over time based on genetic advantages/disadvantages.

Damn near every fruit you get in the grocery store is the same way... Bananas, cherries, lemons, they all started out super small... We humans breed them to be bigger, or to taste a certain way.

In actual nature: Birds Evolve Shorter Wings To Escape Traffic Crush

Edit: The only reason I've replied to you is because you are basing this on science, and not religion. I won't argue with your spiritual beliefs. They are yours. Even if I could take them away from you, I wouldn't try. You are trying to argue that you know something about science. So...
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,705
Reaction score
1,068
Points
245
Location
Virginia
". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
You refuse to accept the consensus of science but accept the authority of a journalist?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
When you say, erroneously, that there is religion being offered, you are simply proving that you have accepted the methods of government school: ridicule the opposition to silence it.

You should be ashamed.
Ok... Look at all the breeds of dogs we have. The big ones, the little ones... We breed them to look a certain way, with certain attributes. That is nothing more than "artificial Darwinism". It's not natural selection, it's forced selection, but it proves the theory. Things can and will change over time based on genetic advantages/disadvantages.

Damn near every fruit you get in the grocery store is the same way... Bananas, cherries, lemons, they all started out super small... We humans breed them to be bigger, or to taste a certain way.

In actual nature: Birds Evolve Shorter Wings To Escape Traffic Crush

Edit: The only reason I've replied to you is because you are basing this on science, and not religion. I won't argue with your spiritual beliefs. They are yours. Even if I could take them away from you, I wouldn't try. You are trying to argue that you know something about science. So...

1. Are you ready to deny that every quote I provided was by a scientist?


2. You've just proven you are clueless about what Darwin 'proves.'
Phenotypes, any individual characteristics such as those wings, were a given for the species.

For Darwin to be proven....new species must be produced....and this has never happened

. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.
22. a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,
"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu
"... there is no evidence for evolution..."



"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski




Now.....where is your comment that this is religion?


You've been tricked, lied to, and fooled.

The real question is why this fraud, Darwinism, is so very important to be put over on the populace.
Figure it out.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
You refuse to accept the consensus of science but accept the authority of a journalist?

No one disputes the diversity of life.

Darwinism is the belief that this is due to the accumulation of modifications, ending in a new species.

Where is the proof, and why do you accept it sans proof?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You've been tricked, lied to, and fooled.

The real question is why this fraud, Darwinism, is so very important to be put over on the populace.
Figure it out.
I can't help you if you won't help yourself.


I've done the research, you've accepted the propaganda.

Wikipedia is good for information, but is controlled by the Left.


How about you respond to the five examples I provided.....and I can provide many more.

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275


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


"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

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



I can't help you if you won't help yourself.

Stop being so afraid of having an unorthodox view.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
7. How overwhelming is that consensus in favor of Darwinism that is forced on school children?



Wells:

“Polls have consistently shown that a significant majority of the American people reject Darwinism. Darwinists claim that the American people (who make up the most scientifically successful country in history) are scientifically illiterate, so their votes don’t count. Even within the community of professional scientists, the situation is not as overwhelming as Darwinists would like us to believe. For many years, the NCSE claimed that no reputable scientists doubted Darwinism. When the Discovery Institute in Seattle started a “Dissent from Darwinism” list, which now includes more than five hundred Ph.D. scientists…

…the NCSE’s original claim had been that no qualified scientists doubt Darwinism—a claim that was decisively refuted long before the “Dissent from Darwinism” list reached the five hundred mark…. there is a significant and growing number of qualified scientists who dissent from Darwinism.”



Deborah Jordan Brooks, “Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans,” Gallup News Service, March 5, 2001. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm.



“100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism,” Zogby International, September 25, 2001. Available online (June 2006) at: Zogby | Alcohol Delivery in Your City.




Michael Foust, “Gallup poll latest to show Americans reject secular evolution,” BP News, October 19, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: Gallup poll latest to show Americans reject secular evolution.

“A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” Discovery Institute. Available online (June 2006) at: Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard..



Don’t you want to question why you never hear about all the dissent?
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
3,889
Reaction score
1,224
Points
198
I've done the research, you've accepted the propaganda.
You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I've done the research, you've accepted the propaganda.
You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Help me?

Not only am I far more versed in science than you, but, unlike you, I stand up to the propaganda.


As I have shown, many scientists dispute Darwinism.

Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)


20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660





So....why is it so important for certain powers to make it taught as factual, and why so important that you be kept in line????


Figure it out.
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
3,889
Reaction score
1,224
Points
198
You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.
 
Last edited:

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
36,257
Reaction score
6,063
Points
1,140
What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
I tell you what, why don't you post a few scientific studies on creationism, and find some scientists who both carried these out and stand by the results.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.

Wow!

The indoctrination is indelible with your sort, huh?

Of course I understand it.....and what it is not.

It never leads to a new species.....which is what you don't understand.

“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
MIT Press Journals


In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor



Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
I tell you what, why don't you post a few scientific studies on creationism, and find some scientists who both carried these out and stand by the results.

You are the one bringing up creationism.

My posts deal purely with science.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,471
Reaction score
31,151
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.

" If you would like me to continue this discussion with you.. "

Are you serious????


You bring nothing to the table, you simply ignore specific and sourced quotes that I present, and you continue with 'is not, issssss noootttttttt!!!"

You have no proof of Darwin's thesis, but believe it like it was your religion, on faith.


If you have nothing to add, don't bother.
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
3,889
Reaction score
1,224
Points
198
Ready to admit you are both clueless, and easily led?
You don't even understand Natural Selection. Without that understanding, you can't disprove anything in regards to Darwin.

I can't help you.

Edit: If you would like me to continue this discussion with you... Explain natural selection in your own words.

I don't expect you to. I don't blame you. I don't hold any grudges. I should have known better.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
36,257
Reaction score
6,063
Points
1,140
What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

  • Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
  • Form a Hypothesis. ...
  • Conduct an Experiment. ...
  • Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “
Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.
I tell you what, why don't you post a few scientific studies on creationism, and find some scientists who both carried these out and stand by the results.

You are the one bringing up creationism.

My posts deal purely with science.
LMf'nAO!!

Like that isn't what you were getting at.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top