Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[PredFan]

This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity. No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory. Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand". I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks. Funny how that works.

I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.

I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.

Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it, is the result of an intelligent Creator.

To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.

The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.

I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.

Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.

 

[orogenicman]

s

This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity. No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory. Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand". I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks. Funny how that works.

I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.

I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.

Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it, is the result of an intelligent Creator.

To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.

The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.

I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.

No, Mr. Wrong, they are not part of the same thing (unless you consider them being scientific theories to be a part of the same thing, that same thing being science). But what you are really saying here is that be it the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, the theory of gravity, light theory, or thermodynamics, what you really mean is that you are against science of any kind. And in that case, I suggest that you using a car, a computer, a stove, a washer and dryer, a hair dryer, antiperspirant, a tooth brush, an aspirin, an antibiotic, a band aid, or any other modern convenience invented by the application of modern science place you among the most hypocritical people on the planet. Congratulations (not that you will ever read this, but hey, you're a loser, so what else is new?). As for debating someone, you couldn't successfully debate a 5th grader. I have brought so much shame to your arguments that you no longer respond to my posts. I can't say what your chances are of defeating anyone else in such a discussion, but you do have my sympathies.

 

[eots]

Creationists openly admit that creation cannot be proven (that's why it's called faith). Evolutionists claim their theory can be proven but when challenged, they immediately attack faith but fail to show their proof. You're sort of doing that right now. The topic isn't "creation vs evolution", it is a challenge to provide evidence of evolution. Your failure (or THEIR failure) to do that shows us that evolution is just as much faith based as creation is but they can't admit that.

Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.

I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.

And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.

I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?

so what new species did your bacteria become ?

Which one? There are many.

When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species

 

[orogenicman]

Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.

I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.

And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.

I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?

so what new species did your bacteria become ?

Which one? There are many.

When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species

Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.

It is a specific type of drug resistance.

Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.

Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.

If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.

Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.

This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.

Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.

The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.

They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.

Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.

Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.

Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.

Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.

Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.

Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.

It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.

Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.

MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.

MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.

Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.

This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.

However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.

The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.

The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.

A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.

Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.

CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.

The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.

In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.

The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.

Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.

CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.

Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.

Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.

Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.

Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.

However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.

For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.

For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.

Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.

Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.

The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.

Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.

Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.

 

[eots]

And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.

I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?

so what new species did your bacteria become ?

Which one? There are many.

When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species

Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.

It is a specific type of drug resistance.

Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.

Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.

If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.

Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.

This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.

Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.

The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.

They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.

Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.

Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.

Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.

Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.

Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.

Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.

It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.

Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.

MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.

MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.

Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.

This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.

However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.

The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.

The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.

A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.

Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.

CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.

The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.

In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.

The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.

Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.

CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.

Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.

Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.

Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.

Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.

However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.

For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.

For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.

Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.

Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.

The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.

Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.

Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.

so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria

 

[MaryL]

Science, it is about science. Evolution is a theory of science.... Like the atom bomb, electricity, chemistry, genetics, you name it. What has religion come up with in the last 2 millennia? Mohamed or Jesus? Please. were are we going with this?

 

[Mr.Right]

This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity. No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory. Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand". I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks. Funny how that works.

I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.

I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.

Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it, is the result of an intelligent Creator.

To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.

The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.

I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.

Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.

So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.

 

[orogenicman]

I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.

I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.

Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it, is the result of an intelligent Creator.

To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.

The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.

I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.

Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.

So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.

Why don't you debate me, Mr. Wrong? Come on grasshopper. Show us what you are made of.

 

[eots]

Science, it is about science. Evolution is a theory of science.... Like the atom bomb, electricity, chemistry, genetics, you name it. What has religion come up with in the last 2 millennia? Mohamed or Jesus? Please. were are we going with this?

The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe.
Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is Highly Probable World News Daily Report

 

[eots]

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing thepossibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility".

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design

 

[Mr.Right]

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing thepossibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility".

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design

Reprobate minds.

 

[S.J.]

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing thepossibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility".

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design

Let's ask him where the aliens came from. Evolution, no doubt.

 

[eots]

Francis Collins Personal story 6 - The beginning of a journey - YouTube

Dr. Francis Collins is a physician and geneticist known for spearheading the Human Genome Project and for his landmark discoveries of disease genes

 

[MaryL]

I also remember Mother Teresa going through a long drought of theological doubt were she doubted the existence god. You have to walk that lonesome valley all by your self. I am humbled. But I won't buy ideological bullshit from anyone.

 

[Mr.Right]

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing thepossibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility".

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design

Let's ask him where the aliens came from. Evolution, no doubt.

I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!

 

[orogenicman]

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing thepossibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility".

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design

Let's ask him where the aliens came from. Evolution, no doubt.

I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!

WTF?

Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever. That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.

 

[orogenicman]

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing thepossibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility".

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design

Reprobate minds.

Chicken shit creationists.

 

[eots]

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
A world-famous chemist tells the truth there s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution Uncommon Descent

 

[Hollie]

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
A world-famous chemist tells the truth there s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution Uncommon Descent

Uncommon Descent is among the more notoriously silly ID'iot creationist sites.

Do you fundie loons realize how really pathetic your position is?

 

[Hollie]

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing thepossibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility".

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design

Let's ask him where the aliens came from. Evolution, no doubt.

I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!

You are totally clueless.