# The Evolution Fraud



## ChemEngineer

*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.


----------



## Mac1958

No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.

Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.


----------



## Erinwltr

Mac1958 said:


> No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.
> 
> Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.


Reminds me of a lyric in a Kansas song, Carry on Wayward Son.
      "And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.



Odds are against winning Mega Millions....people still win.


----------



## ReinyDays

ChemEngineer said:


> 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.



That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...

It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme *at least once* approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, *once is enough *... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four *at least once* in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...

Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...


----------



## alang1216

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.


You're correct the, odds of a protein just happening by chance is remote.  What you are ignoring is evolution and natural selection.  Imagine a single chimp on a typewriter (do those even exist anymore?) hitting keys.  The odds of him typing out the Declaration of Independance are also very remote.  However, if someone watched him work and removed any letter he typed until he randomly hit a 'W' he'd pretty quickly get that first letter.  If the process was repeated and only an 'H' was not removed, again it would not take much time and he'd be on his way to "When in the course..."


----------



## jwoodie

As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.


----------



## Ringel05

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.


----------



## BlindBoo

ID is belief in something, other than the natural world we observe where we live and die in, created us and the world we live in.

On Scientism:

"So if science is distinct from scientism, what is it? Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods. Given the complexity of the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it.

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. Scientism restricts human inquiry.

It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific."

What is Scientism?


----------



## alang1216

jwoodie said:


> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.


As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.


----------



## jwoodie

alang1216 said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
Click to expand...


Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.  (They are still bears.)  Get it?

P.S.  Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?


----------



## alang1216

jwoodie said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.  (They are still bears.)  Get it?
> 
> P.S.  Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?
Click to expand...

Humans *evolved *from apes when they *adapted *to life on the savanna.

Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do.  Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution.  There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.


----------



## jwoodie

alang1216 said:


> Humans *evolved *from apes when they *adapted *to life on the savanna.
> 
> Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.



Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory.  And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.


----------



## Wyatt earp

alang1216 said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.  (They are still bears.)  Get it?
> 
> P.S.  Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans *evolved *from apes when they *adapted *to life on the savanna.
> 
> Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do.  Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution.  There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.
Click to expand...



How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?


----------



## alang1216

bear513 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.  (They are still bears.)  Get it?
> 
> P.S.  Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans *evolved *from apes when they *adapted *to life on the savanna.
> 
> Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do.  Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution.  There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?
Click to expand...

Planted by who?  God?  Is God deceiving us or does he have a sense of humor?


----------



## alang1216

jwoodie said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans *evolved *from apes when they *adapted *to life on the savanna.
> 
> Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do. Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution. There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory.  And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.
Click to expand...

So *trillions *of bits of supporting evidence is not sufficient?  I have yet to hear ANY theory from you.  Please meet the burden of proof requirement.


----------



## Ringel05

alang1216 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.  (They are still bears.)  Get it?
> 
> P.S.  Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans *evolved *from apes when they *adapted *to life on the savanna.
> 
> Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do.  Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution.  There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planted by who?  God?  Is God deceiving us or does he have a sense of humor?
Click to expand...

Try Corinthians..........

Doesn't mean you have to believe simply answering your question based on what the Bible says.


----------



## ReinyDays

jwoodie said:


> Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory.  And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.



As a corollary ... the opponent to a theory is burdened with stating a replacement that fits all the observed information ... if you wish to offer intelligent design, then what experiment can we conduct to show this? ... how does all the tiny changes in the terrestrial herbivore we find as we go up the rock strata "intelligently" produce whales ... or do you have evidence that whales have always existed ...

It's these incremental changes over long periods of time that we are trying to explain ... I'm fine if you want to reject Evolution, but what do you replace it with and how do you demonstrate this replacement ... other than through blind faith that God created whales on the Fifth Day ...


----------



## alang1216

Ringel05 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.  (They are still bears.)  Get it?
> 
> P.S.  Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans *evolved *from apes when they *adapted *to life on the savanna.
> 
> Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do.  Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution.  There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planted by who?  God?  Is God deceiving us or does he have a sense of humor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try Corinthians..........
> 
> Doesn't mean you have to believe simply answering your question based on what the Bible says.
Click to expand...

I'm not a believer and I'm not sure what in Corinthians answers my questions.  Can you narrow it down?


----------



## Ringel05

alang1216 said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
Click to expand...

Part of the issue here is how "evolution" is taught and addressed specifically towards students.  The word itself is used much too broadly instead of how it was intended, "descent with modification."  Most don't even try to teach evolution it's simply tossed out without any attempt to truly engage the students and this is for a multitude of reasons the primary is a real lack of knowledge among the teachers and the fear of the Pandora's box that could potentially be opened by doing so.  That in and of itself is a causative problem and rests squarely on the shoulders of scientists and teachers.
One of the scientist/teacher caused problems is associating evolution with the origin of life.  Evolution IS NOT a definition of the origin of life nor can it explain it, they are two completely different subjects so stop equating the two.  Evolution also DOES NOT negate the possibility of divine design except to those on both sides who I will call "fundamentalists" for lack of a bettor descriptor.  
You wish people to understand evolution?  Teach it for what it is not what many wish it to be and be understanding of natural human resistance fed by lack of information, misinformation and wishful thinking on ALL sides.


----------



## Ringel05

alang1216 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.  (They are still bears.)  Get it?
> 
> P.S.  Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?
> 
> 
> 
> Humans *evolved *from apes when they *adapted *to life on the savanna.
> 
> Almost any mountain composed of fossil-bearing, sedimentary layers will do.  Study the fossil record carefully and you'll find that, of the trillions of fossils found there, not a single one violates the theory of evolution.  There are no eyewitnesses but mountains of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planted by who?  God?  Is God deceiving us or does he have a sense of humor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try Corinthians..........
> 
> Doesn't mean you have to believe simply answering your question based on what the Bible says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a believer and I'm not sure what in Corinthians answers my questions.  Can you narrow it down?
Click to expand...

Basically it talks about God confusing and confounding "the wise".  Now whether it actually applies in this instance is probably open to interpretation.  You basically asked for an example, I gave you one to mull over.


----------



## ReinyDays

Cornith is there by the Sahara Desert, where we find these "basil whale" fossils ... just because the men-folk were eager to marry the dorkable widow women doesn't mean they were stupid, just horny ... maybe they sent Paul some of these fossils asking why they made a perfect intermediary between cows and whales ... and just maybe in the context of asking the men to quit wife swapping he didn't want to deal with explaining the fossils ... "A mystery of God, now focus on what's plain and simple" ...

One of my kids asked me where babies come from instead of explaining why he spray-painted the neighbor's dog ... it's clever dodge ...


----------



## ChemEngineer

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Odds are against winning Mega Millions....people still win.
> 
> Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....



Stay with me here. I'll give you some math.  I know, it's hard.

1. Lotteries have odds of one chance in a hundred or two hundred or three hundred million.
2.  A hundred or two hundred million people buy tickets.
Surprise, surprise. Sometimes someone buys the winning ticket!  One in ten to the eighth, or ninth.
Whoop de do.
3.  I presented a coherent argument for what is clearly impossible, one in 10 to the 150th.
4.  Ten to the 150th is 141 or 142 orders of magnitude than the lottery odds you cite.

Now let me explain why 1 in 10 to the 50th is impossible.

10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.
Now imagine a man in a space suit plunging into any one of 15 spheres the size of our solar system full of sand and picking the one specially marked grain of sand, on his first and only try.  
He doesn't get an infinite number of attempts.  This is 1 in 10 to the 50th, not infinite in 10 to the 50th.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Ringel05 said:


> 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.



Nobody attempted to prove anything.  It is foolish and fruitless to misunderstand science, as you so clearly do.
Science doesn't do "proofs."  Statistical evidence was presented and obviously that upset you.  It should not.

"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, a scientist


----------



## ChemEngineer

alang1216 said:


> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either _*too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy *_to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either* too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves*.



“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

“I can think of no other example in all of history  when an important scientific theory (Neo-Darwinism) – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research.  People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture

All these ignorant, lazy, blinded people, with PhDs.  Tsk, tsk.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“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)

If you continue calling them names, alang1216, perhaps you will convince all of these scientists of your intellectual superiority. Ya think?  Does name calling and condescension convince people of "science"?
Is that how it works in your Leftist domain?  Evidently so.


“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)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

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

“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)


----------



## Syriusly

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.



Do you realize that Evolution doesn't concern itself with where the first life came from?

That if some fairy in the sky dropped the first single cells creatures on Earth, evolution still would be the model that best accounts for all of the current life on earth? 

Anyway- if it makes you feel better that some guy has said that he doesn't think it is mathematically possible- go with whatever makes you feel better- just don't call it science.


----------



## ReinyDays

*3. I presented a coherent argument for what is clearly impossible, one in 10 to the 150th.*

No ... you didn't ... it's an incoherent argument that any non-zero value is in fact zero ... that violates the fundamental rule of real numbers ... there's always a smaller one no matter how small the number is ... in every way, the odds of 1 to 10 raised to the 150th power is within the realm of possibilities ... ya, I know, math is hard ...


----------



## BlindBoo

ChemEngineer said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody attempted to prove anything.  It is foolish and fruitless to misunderstand science, as you so clearly do.
> Science doesn't do "proofs."  Statistical evidence was presented and obviously that upset you.  It should not.
> 
> "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, a scientist
Click to expand...


How does the ID Creation theory cause the Evolution theory to be a fraud?

Most scientist do not subscribe to scientism do they?


----------



## Syriusly

jwoodie said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.  (They are still bears.)  Get it?
> 
> P.S.  Where are these mountains of direct evidence located?
Click to expand...


Polar Bears are white because of adaptation, not evolution.

Not exactly. Polar Bears are Polar Bears because of evolution. And Polar Bears are white because of evolution. 

Adaptation is the process of adjusting something to better match it's environment or situation.
Evolution is a broad term that refers to any change in anything over time.


----------



## Syriusly

ChemEngineer said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either _*too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy *_to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either* too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “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
> 
> “I can think of no other example in all of history  when an important scientific theory (Neo-Darwinism) – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research.  People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture
> 
> All these ignorant, lazy, blinded people, with PhDs.  Tsk, tsk.
> 
> In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
> 
> “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)
> 
> If you continue calling them names, alang1216, perhaps you will convince all of these scientists of your intellectual superiority. Ya think?  Does name calling and condescension convince people of "science"?
> Is that how it works in your Leftist domain?  Evidently so.
> 
> 
> “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)
> 
> “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).
> 
> “In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.”  (Dr. Arthur Koestler)
> 
> “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)
Click to expand...


----------



## ChemEngineer

Syriusly said:


> Do you realize that Evolution doesn't concern itself with where the first life came from?



Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never mentioned abiogenesis.   That only makes your naturalistic claims even more impossible.



> That if some fairy in the sky dropped the first single cells creatures on Earth, evolution still would be the model that best accounts for all of the current life on earth?
> 
> Anyway- if it makes you feel better that some guy has said that he doesn't think it is mathematically possible- go with whatever makes you feel better- just don't call it science.



1.  If a model doesn't work, it must be abandoned.  This you cannot do because your handlers have their snouts deep in the government grant trough.
2.  "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck  [Do you know who he was?]
3.  Biochemistry is science. You should study it some time.
4.  Explain the generation of a functional 1,000 link polypeptide, including chirality and lots of waving the Magic Wand of *Selection*.  Keep in mind that Douglas Axe demonstrated that only 1 polypeptide in 10 to the 77th combinations is functional.  Show us your science.  I'm sure everyone will be impressed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChemEngineer said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odds are against winning Mega Millions....people still win.
> 
> Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay with me here. I'll give you some math.  I know, it's hard.
> 
> 1. Lotteries have odds of one chance in a hundred or two hundred or three hundred million.
> 2.  A hundred or two hundred million people buy tickets.
> Surprise, surprise. Sometimes someone buys the winning ticket!  One in ten to the eighth, or ninth.
> Whoop de do.
> 3.  I presented a coherent argument for what is clearly impossible, one in 10 to the 150th.
> 4.  Ten to the 150th is 141 or 142 orders of magnitude than the lottery odds you cite.
> 
> Now let me explain why 1 in 10 to the 50th is impossible.
> 
> 10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.
> Now imagine a man in a space suit plunging into any one of 15 spheres the size of our solar system full of sand and picking the one specially marked grain of sand, on his first and only try.
> He doesn't get an infinite number of attempts.  This is 1 in 10 to the 50th, not infinite in 10 to the 50th.
Click to expand...


*Now let me explain why 1 in 10 to the 50th is impossible.*

You don't have to explain why your fake number is impossible, you need to prove evolution is wrong.
With evidence.

Saying, unlikely times unlikely equals impossible.....isn't evidence.

*Now imagine a man in a space suit plunging into any one of 15 spheres the size of our solar system full of sand and picking the one specially marked grain of sand, on his first and only try.  *

Now imagine millions of men over billions of years. Only try? LOL!

*He doesn't get an infinite number of attempts.  *

He doesn't? Link?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Syriusly said:


> View attachment 290723



You don't understand science.  If Neo-Darwinism fails, as it does and very miserably, it must be abandoned, notwithstanding your emotional tantrums and diatribes and name-calling.  No "alternative"  is required.
Since when did failed science continue to be promoted and defended because no "better alternative" was offered?  Only since 1859. Only since then.  Your Magic Selection Wand is anti-science and anti-intellectual.
"It's fit because it survives and it survives because it's fit!  Science in A>B>C>D Land.

"In China we can criticize evolution but not the government.  In America, you can criticize the government but not evolution." - Prominent Chinese Paleontologist


----------



## jwoodie

ReinyDays said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory.  And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a corollary ... the opponent to a theory is burdened with stating a replacement that fits all the observed information ... if you wish to offer intelligent design, then what experiment can we conduct to show this? ... how does all the tiny changes in the terrestrial herbivore we find as we go up the rock strata "intelligently" produce whales ... or do you have evidence that whales have always existed ...
Click to expand...


1.  The opponent of a theory has no burden to come up with a replacement theory.  If you believe the Moon is made of green cheese, I do not have no obligation to propose a different material.

2.  Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another.  They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species.  There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.

3.  Your reference to intelligent design is a straw man argument.  I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence.  For example, it was widely hailed when Copernicus suggested that everything in the universe revolved around the Sun, despite the fact that the Moon didn't seem to behave itself.  Let us not assume we have all the answers. 

I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of the universe, and am hesitant to attribute them to anthropological explanations.  However, I am more inclined to support interventional events in the Earth's history (e.g., asteroids killing the dinosaurs) rather than highly unlikely statistical hypotheses (e.g., it just happens over millions of years).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

jwoodie said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but the burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory.  And your conclusory statements are not evidence of anything other then your limited state of mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a corollary ... the opponent to a theory is burdened with stating a replacement that fits all the observed information ... if you wish to offer intelligent design, then what experiment can we conduct to show this? ... how does all the tiny changes in the terrestrial herbivore we find as we go up the rock strata "intelligently" produce whales ... or do you have evidence that whales have always existed ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  The opponent of a theory has no burden to come up with a replacement theory.  If you believe the Moon is made of green cheese, I do not have no obligation to propose a different material.
> 
> 2.  Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another.  They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species.  There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.
> 
> 3.  Your reference to intelligent design is a straw man argument.  I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence.  For example, it was widely hailed when Copernicus suggested that everything in the universe revolved around the Sun, despite the fact that the Moon didn't seem to behave itself.  Let us not assume we have all the answers.
> 
> I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of the universe, and am hesitant to attribute them to anthropological explanations.  However, I am more inclined to support interventional events in the Earth's history (e.g., asteroids killing the dinosaurs) rather than highly unlikely statistical hypotheses (e.g., it just happens over millions of years).
Click to expand...


* I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence.  *

In what post #?


----------



## alang1216

ChemEngineer said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either _*too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy *_to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either* too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “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
> 
> “I can think of no other example in all of history  when an important scientific theory (Neo-Darwinism) – a dominant position in intellectual life – was held in such contempt and skepticism by people who are paying for its research.  People just found that theory impossible to swallow.” – David Berlinski, 2008 lecture
> 
> All these ignorant, lazy, blinded people, with PhDs.  Tsk, tsk.
> 
> In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
> 
> “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)
> 
> If you continue calling them names, alang1216, perhaps you will convince all of these scientists of your intellectual superiority. Ya think?  Does name calling and condescension convince people of "science"?
> Is that how it works in your Leftist domain?  Evidently so.
> 
> 
> “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)
> 
> “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).
> 
> “In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology.”  (Dr. Arthur Koestler)
> 
> “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)
Click to expand...


As Ringel05 said:


Ringel05 said:


> The word itself is used much too broadly instead of how it was intended, "descent with modification."



I didn't bother to check your sources but I'm confident that the majority of the scientists you quote have no doubt that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor.  How evolution happened is debatable, that it happened is not.


----------



## Ringel05

ChemEngineer said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody attempted to prove anything.  It is foolish and fruitless to misunderstand science, as you so clearly do.
> Science doesn't do "proofs."  *Statistical evidence was presented and obviously that upset you.*  It should not.
> 
> "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, a scientist
Click to expand...

  Fantasizing?


----------



## ReinyDays

ChemEngineer said:


> Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never mentioned abiogenesis.   That only makes your naturalistic claims even more impossible.



[Raises hand] ... that was me who brought up abiogenesis ... many processes in nature are required to be _initiated_, or they can't happen ... the two can't be separated ... we can't ignore abiogenesis any more than we can ignore vortices ... "it just happened" smacks of pseudo-science ...



ChemEngineer said:


> 1.  If a model doesn't work, it must be abandoned.  This you cannot do because your handlers have their snouts deep in the government grant trough.
> 2.  "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck  [Do you know who he was?]
> 3.  Biochemistry is science. You should study it some time.
> 4.  Explain the generation of a functional 1,000 link polypeptide, including chirality and lots of waving the Magic Wand of *Selection*.  Keep in mind that Douglas Axe demonstrated that only 1 polypeptide in 10 to the 77th combinations is functional.  Show us your science.  I'm sure everyone will be impressed.



1. Throw the baby out with the bath water? ... if we find a flaw in a theory, we tweek the theory ... we don't throw out the Big Bang theory just because the universe's expansion is still accelerating ... we adjust the theory to match what is observed ...
2. "This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact-a remarkable one, in my opinion: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck, 1948; translation Frank Gaynor, 1949 ... if you knew who Max Planck was, you'd know he published in German ...
3. Are you a biochemist? ... do you know what an enzyme is? ...
4. We just need few enzymes to produce all manner of polypeptides ... an enzyme is the same as a catalyst ... whatever roll it plays in the chemical reaction, it is returned whole to be used again for the next reaction ...


----------



## alang1216

jwoodie said:


> 2.  Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another.  They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species.  There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.


It's not 'archeological' but I know what you meant and you're still wrong.  The biology of the extinct species and the biology of the new species it the evidence of their relationship.  New species don't just appear with no precursors.  If they did we'd have vertebrates with any number of fingers or limbs.  The wing of a bat and your arm has more than a causal relationship.


----------



## ChemEngineer

jwoodie said:


> 1.  The opponent of a theory has no burden to come up with a replacement theory.  If you believe the Moon is made of green cheese, I do not have no obligation to propose a different material.
> 
> 2.  Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another.  They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species.  There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.
> 
> 3.  Your reference to intelligent design is a straw man argument.  I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence.  For example, it was widely hailed when Copernicus suggested that everything in the universe revolved around the Sun, despite the fact that the Moon didn't seem to behave itself.  Let us not assume we have all the answers.
> 
> I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of the universe, and am hesitant to attribute them to anthropological explanations.  However, I am more inclined to support interventional events in the Earth's history (e.g., asteroids killing the dinosaurs) rather than highly unlikely statistical hypotheses (e.g., it just happens over millions of years).
> 
> Casting pearls...



jwoodie, you did indeed cast pearls.  Well done, Friend.

The Magic Wand of Selection has been snapped and the magicians are very angry.


----------



## ChemEngineer

ReinyDays said:


> 1. Throw the baby out with the bath water? ... if we find a flaw in a theory, we tweek the theory ... we don't throw out the Big Bang theory just because the universe's expansion is still accelerating ... we adjust the theory to match what is observed …



Biologists have been tweeking and continue to tweek Darwinism for 150 years and still it fails.
You simply cannot "adjust" his magic tautology to explain the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.



> 3. Are you a biochemist? ... do you know what an enzyme is? ...
> 4. We just need few enzymes to produce all manner of polypeptides ... an enzyme is the same as a catalyst ... whatever roll it plays in the chemical reaction, it is returned whole to be used again for the next reaction ...



Oh please.  Enzymes do NOT produce new polypeptides.  Your vaunted random mutations are supposed to do that.   They can't and they don't.  I know more about biochemistry than you ever will and it is still very little.
It's a big world. Darwin's Magic Wand doesn't do anything. "A1>A2 and B1>B2" are garbage from Richard Dawkins. They're meaningless but his sycophants eat them up and call it "science."


----------



## ReinyDays

jwoodie said:


> 1.  The opponent of a theory has no burden to come up with a replacement theory.  If you believe the Moon is made of green cheese, I do not have no obligation to propose a different material.
> 
> 2.  Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another.  They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species.  There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.
> 
> 3.  Your reference to intelligent design is a straw man argument.  I have merely pointed out that the currently popular theory of gradual evolution is fatally flawed, both in concept and physical evidence.  For example, it was widely hailed when Copernicus suggested that everything in the universe revolved around the Sun, despite the fact that the Moon didn't seem to behave itself.  Let us not assume we have all the answers.
> 
> I do not pretend to understand the mysteries of the universe, and am hesitant to attribute them to anthropological explanations.  However, I am more inclined to support interventional events in the Earth's history (e.g., asteroids killing the dinosaurs) rather than highly unlikely statistical hypotheses (e.g., it just happens over millions of years).



1. My claim that the Moon was made of green cheese is taken _completely_ out of context ... I was explaining why Kraft Foods pulled their financial support from NASA once the fake Moon rocks got analysed ... you're not obligated to refute my claim, but if you do, you can't cover your ears and chant "You're wrong, na na na, I can't hear you, na na na" ... you have to say which kind of cheese the Moon really is made of ...

2. Archeology is about humans, you mean paleontology? ... DNA sequencing has confirmed the causal relationships we deduced from fossils ... sometimes slow, sometimes fast ... not that all steps in all organisms are clear, but a few are ... and that's loads better than your complete lack of proof to the contrary ... 

3. That's a rather piss-poor example ... Copernicus _feared for his life_ with these ideas, and only agreed to the publication on his deathbed ... Galileo narrowly escape hangin' and was sentenced to house arrest for all of his remaining days ... funerals shmerals, we had to split the entire church ... again ... to get Copernicus' ideas in common dialogue ...

We absolutely don't have all the answers to Evolution, nowhere close ... every time we answer one question, the answer asks twenty more ... and I'm fine basing this on a rather clever use of the statistical arts, _for now_, but I do expect a humble and respectable acknowledgement of these problems ... science only requires that this _can_ be shown, not that we have to show it, at least until technology allows us to ... gravity waves were strictly theoretical until we turned on LIGO ...


----------



## jwoodie

alang1216 said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Archeological records do not support the theory of gradual evolution from one species to another.  They merely indicate the extinction of some species and appearance of other species.  There is no evidence of a causal relationship between them.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'archeological' but I know what you meant and you're still wrong.  The biology of the extinct species and the biology of the new species it the evidence of their relationship.  New species don't just appear with no precursors.  If they did we'd have vertebrates with any number of fingers or limbs.  The wing of a bat and your arm has more than a causal relationship.
Click to expand...


Good point, but why are there so few intermediate species in the fossil record?  Could it be that external events, such as bursts of solar radiation, caused mass genetic mutations?  I think that the mere passage of time ("millions of years") is a poor excuse for entirely new species to arise.


----------



## gtopa1

Mac1958 said:


> No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.
> 
> Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.


A lot of truth in that.

Greg


----------



## ReinyDays

ChemEngineer said:


> Biologists have been tweeking and continue to tweek Darwinism for 150 years and still it fails.
> You simply cannot "adjust" his magic tautology to explain the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.



We've been tweeking Newtonian physics a lot longer ... and still an active area of research ... wait until we discover life elsewhere ... perhaps a top-to-bottom re-write ... that's perfectly acceptable in science ... after so many funerals ...



ChemEngineer said:


> Oh please.  Enzymes do NOT produce new polypeptides.  Your vaunted random mutations are supposed to do that.   They can't and they don't.  I know more about biochemistry than you ever will and it is still very little.



At least I took a class ... fucking teacher made us memorize anaerobic glycolysis with the damn enzymes for each reaction for the final ... I walked away with a deep appreciation how important enzymes are to everything that happens inside a cell ... including protein production ... we only need to form the enzyme once, and that's assumed to be enough ... 



ChemEngineer said:


> It's a big world. Darwin's Magic Wand doesn't do anything. "A1>A2 and B1>B2" are garbage from Richard Dawkins. They're meaningless but his sycophants eat them up and call it "science."



There's some actual truth to the urban legend that farmers save the seeds from their best plants for next year's sowing ... we've known this increases crop yields since perhaps the agricultural revolution ... if evolution is wrong, then how do you explain this? ... is Richard Dawkins a friend of yours, I'll try to avoid his company then ...


----------



## ChemEngineer

ReinyDays said:


> At least I took a class ... fucking teacher made us memorize anaerobic glycolysis with the damn enzymes for each reaction for the final ... I walked away with a deep appreciation how important enzymes are to everything that happens inside a cell ... including protein production ... we only need to form the enzyme once, and that's assumed to be enough ...



Five thousand or so proteins in the human body alone, and you think an enzyme works magic, making them all?
Your vulgarity is compounded by your simplistic nonsense.




> There's some actual truth to the urban legend that farmers save the seeds from their best plants for next year's sowing ... we've known this increases crop yields since perhaps the agricultural revolution ... if evolution is wrong, then how do you explain this? ... is Richard Dawkins a friend of yours, I'll try to avoid his company then ...



Ask someone to explain the difference between adaptation and change in kind.  You clearly don't understand.
I read several of Dawkins' books and sent notes to his publisher, exposing one error after another.  The best hateful Dawkins could do was call me names.  That's what passes for intellectualism in Leftist circles.
Now since you have nothing to say that is remotely worthwhile, you will be third on my Ignore List.
ciao


----------



## ReinyDays

Wow ... thank you for to honor of being on your ignore list ... I'll cherish this moment for all eternity ... 

Someone quote me so he has to read this ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ReinyDays said:


> Wow ... thank you for to honor of being on your ignore list ... I'll cherish this moment for all eternity ...
> 
> Someone quote me so he has to read this ...



*Wow ... thank you for to honor of being on your ignore list ... I'll cherish this moment for all eternity … *

He showed you...….


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Okay here goes one more thing.  If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry.  Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.


----------



## luchitociencia

If evolution was to be true, then right now we should have super vision rather than more people in need of prescribed lenses. 

Evolution is a fraud.


----------



## Hollie

luchitociencia said:


> If evolution was to be true, then right now we should have super vision rather than more people in need of prescribed lenses.
> 
> Evolution is a fraud.



That's nonsensical. Biological evolution is not directed toward a subjective interpretation of "better". The only direction evolution always moves is towards "more fit." And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.

Ignorance is not a fraud, it's a choice.


----------



## alang1216

jwoodie said:


> Good point, but why are there so few intermediate species in the fossil record?  Could it be that external events, such as bursts of solar radiation, caused mass genetic mutations?  I think that the mere passage of time ("millions of years") is a poor excuse for entirely new species to arise.


Every creature that ever lived is 'intermediate' between its' parents and offspring.  
I guess that 'mass genetic mutations' are better for ending a species than starting a new one.
It is not time that creates new species, it is change in the environment.  Think how many environmental changes the planet has seen in the last million years: ice ages, sea level changes, climatic changes, volcanic eruptions, etc.


----------



## ChemEngineer

andaronjim said:


> Okay here goes one more thing.  If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry.  Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.



Well stated, Friend.  Speaking of dreck....

Hundreds of millions of dollars squandered


----------



## ChemEngineer

Hollie said:


> luchitociencia:  "Evolution is a fraud."
> 
> That's nonsensical. Biological evolution is not directed toward a subjective interpretation of "better". The only direction evolution always moves is towards "more fit." And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.
> 
> Ignorance is not a fraud, it's a choice.



It's "more fit" because it survives.  And it survives because it's "more fit."  Oh the sublime *science* underlying Darwin's Magic Selection Wand.  Simply marvelous. When it needs to go fast, it does!  When it needs to freeze and go nowhere, it does!  Ceolocanth, thought to be extinct for 350 million years, but found alive off the African coast.  Alligators and other reptiles, claimed to be unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.  No prob for Uncle Charles.  He's got everything *explained* (wink, nudge).  His is a constantly moving explanation.  Just wave his magic Selection Wand.


----------



## ReinyDays

Why does the evolution debate always center on the cute doe-eyed woodland creatures? ... I feel like I'm talking to preteen girls ... 

We should be discussing bacteria, viruses and such ... and looking how these organisms change over time ... I know they're icky, and dirty, but c'mon girls, grow up ...


----------



## progressive hunter

andaronjim said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
Click to expand...



no human alive or dead has ever seen a dino evolve into anything,,,to say they did makes you a liar,,,


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia:  "Evolution is a fraud."
> 
> That's nonsensical. Biological evolution is not directed toward a subjective interpretation of "better". The only direction evolution always moves is towards "more fit." And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.
> 
> Ignorance is not a fraud, it's a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's "more fit" because it survives.  And it survives because it's "more fit."  Oh the sublime *science* underlying Darwin's Magic Selection Wand.  Simply marvelous. When it needs to go fast, it does!  When it needs to freeze and go nowhere, it does!  Ceolocanth, thought to be extinct for 350 million years, but found alive off the African coast.  Alligators and other reptiles, claimed to be unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.  No prob for Uncle Charles.  He's got everything *explained* (wink, nudge).  His is a constantly moving explanation.  Just wave his magic Selection Wand.
Click to expand...

Typically, it's the hyper-religious / Henry Morris groupies who are the most anti-science. Religious extremists tend not to understand some very basic definitions. While it is certainly true that survival can be a measure of fitness, what is actually observed are adaptive traits or favourable characteristics. 

The relevant sciences have clear examples in living organisms that show how random mutation plus selection can lead to improved "fitness." 

The magical wand waving/ bible thumping "the gawds did it" screamers have no valid alternate explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no human alive or dead has ever seen a dino evolve into anything,,,to say they did makes you a liar,,,
Click to expand...


Well,,,, actually,,,, observed instances of speciation are plentiful,,,,

Has any human ever seen any of the gods do magic,,,,?,,,, you know,,,,,, like pull a pregnant virgin out of a hat,,,,,?,,,,,,


----------



## rightwinger

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.



Evolution is a FACT
God is a theory


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

progressive hunter said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no human alive or dead has ever seen a dino evolve into anything,,,to say they did makes you a liar,,,
Click to expand...

No shit Sherlock, "heres your sign", I said that back in the day of the NYC worlds fair, that I attended, the dinosaur was considered a slow moving reptile with cold blood.  Today they are considered fast, warm blooded and even have feathers on them with no relation to a slow moving reptile but raptors.  But you who was probably educated in the public education(indoctrination) system, just couldn't understand that I said the same thing in the above post.


----------



## jwoodie

alang1216 said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but why are there so few intermediate species in the fossil record?  Could it be that external events, such as bursts of solar radiation, caused mass genetic mutations?  I think that the mere passage of time ("millions of years") is a poor excuse for entirely new species to arise.
> 
> 
> 
> Every creature that ever lived is 'intermediate' between its' parents and offspring.
Click to expand...


This is what drives me crazy when trying to discuss evolution with its true believers.  When asked a question they can't answer, they resort to inane generalities.  Contrary to your response, my children and grandchildren are the same species.


----------



## ding

Life spontaneously forming from inanimate matter is not technically evolution in the biological sense of the word. As there is no natural selection involved whatsoever. 

However it is evolution in the general sense of the word. Such as anything which moves from a less advanced state to a more advanced state.


----------



## alang1216

jwoodie said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but why are there so few intermediate species in the fossil record?  Could it be that external events, such as bursts of solar radiation, caused mass genetic mutations?  I think that the mere passage of time ("millions of years") is a poor excuse for entirely new species to arise.
> 
> 
> 
> Every creature that ever lived is 'intermediate' between its' parents and offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what drives me crazy when trying to discuss evolution with its true believers.  When asked a question they can't answer, they resort to inane generalities.  Contrary to your response, my children and grandchildren are the same species.
Click to expand...

What drives me crazy when trying to discuss evolution with its opponents is that they resort to vague terms that they won't or can't define. What is an intermediate species?  What are its' characteristics?  What are some examples?


----------



## jwoodie

alang1216 said:


> What is an intermediate species? What are its' characteristics? What are some examples?



Exactly.


----------



## alang1216

jwoodie said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is an intermediate species? What are its' characteristics? What are some examples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...

Exactly, insanity.

*You *used the term intermediate species but offered no definition.  Do you ever read what you write?


----------



## jwoodie

alang1216 said:


> *You *used the term intermediate species but offered no definition.



What do you call a fish evolving into a duck?


----------



## alang1216

jwoodie said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You *used the term intermediate species but offered no definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call a fish evolving into a duck?
Click to expand...

Is that your definition?  A fish with feathers?  Their common ancestor probably lived 400 million years ago.  Plenty of steps in between them.  You can't name any, more recent, intermediate species?


----------



## jwoodie

alang1216 said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You *used the term intermediate species but offered no definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call a fish evolving into a duck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that your definition?  A fish with feathers?  Their common ancestor probably lived 400 million years ago.  Plenty of steps in between them.  You can't name any, more recent, intermediate species?
Click to expand...


Another thing true believers lack is a sense of humor.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Well the first liberal Democrat was found around 10,000 years ago.


----------



## ReinyDays

The Hawthorns (_Crataegus_ spp.) provides an example of intermediate species ... species growing close to each other have only small differences, but the further away one gets the more differences there are ... the Oaks (_Quercus_ spp.) also show this gradual change as one moves along, and it's said one need only look at the local oak tree to tell where they are ... human gut fauna seems to be specific to the individual, poop transplants take some time to adjust and adapt before the recipient gains the expected benefit ... 

There are some taxons that show this spectral nature of diversity, each species is very close to some other species but then quite different from more distant species ... and this is more common in the microorganisms ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.


@moderators

Please move this thread to the conspiracy section or the religious section, where it belongs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

jwoodie said:


> Contrary to your response, my children and grandchildren are the same species.


jwoodie

And yet slightly genetically different, and his statement is accurate. Every offspring ever was the same species as its parents. These are slight differences that accumulate over time. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't even be commenting on the topic of evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac1958 said:


> No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.


Everyone who is paying attention knows, going back to single celled creatures, anyway. So it would be more accurate for us to say we don't know how single celled creatures got here, or where they came from.

But we do have a name for the process: abiogenesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringel05 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation.  The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, its most strident opponents endeavor to separate evolution from adaptation.   Evolution is the result of adaptation.  Evolution is a theory with (literally) mountains of direct evidence, gathered over centuries, to back it up.  Its opponents are usually either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves and so depend on the word of others who are likewise either too ignorant, too blinded by religion, or too lazy to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of the issue here is how "evolution" is taught and addressed specifically towards students.  The word itself is used much too broadly instead of how it was intended, "descent with modification."  Most don't even try to teach evolution it's simply tossed out without any attempt to truly engage the students and this is for a multitude of reasons the primary is a real lack of knowledge among the teachers and the fear of the Pandora's box that could potentially be opened by doing so.  That in and of itself is a causative problem and rests squarely on the shoulders of scientists and teachers.
> One of the scientist/teacher caused problems is associating evolution with the origin of life.  Evolution IS NOT a definition of the origin of life nor can it explain it, they are two completely different subjects so stop equating the two.  Evolution also DOES NOT negate the possibility of divine design except to those on both sides who I will call "fundamentalists" for lack of a bettor descriptor.
> You wish people to understand evolution?  Teach it for what it is not what many wish it to be and be understanding of natural human resistance fed by lack of information, misinformation and wishful thinking on ALL sides.
Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins, via his charity, has a program to help teachers learn about and teach evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim said:


> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost


Neat! But it was not a random event. Selection is anything but random. So your talking point is bunk.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?


You mean, how do we know it wasn't magic? We don't. Thats the problem with magic...It's a useless idea. Introducing it renders all evidence and causality impossible. It's an inherently absurd idea. One could never find evidence for or against it, and it explains nothing. 

And to try to get around that to claim "then just SOMETIMES magic!" is just as absurd, as you are making an only slightly more narrow version of the same claim, while also claiming it just happens to align with your beliefs, fetishes, or superstitons. That's doubly absurd.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost
> 
> 
> 
> Neat! But it was not a random event. Selection is anything but random. So your talking point is bunk.
Click to expand...

Just love when an idiot who thinks men with boobs is a woman, tells me I am wrong...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> Plenty of steps in between them. You can't name any, more recent, intermediate species?


Pay attention. He is saying that is a meaningless term, as all species are "intermediate species".


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they weren't planted there to confuse?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, how do we know it wasnt magic? We don't. Thats the problem with magic...its a useless idea. Introducing it renders all ebidence and causality impossible. It's an inherently absurd idea.
Click to expand...

So is letting men with boobs into a little girls room., but you sure do love Satanic ideas...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost
> 
> 
> 
> Neat! But it was not a random event. Selection is anything but random. So your talking point is bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just love when an idiot who thinks men with boobs is a woman, tells me I am wrong...
Click to expand...

Oh, then maybe you would settle for the overwhelimg majority of the global scientific community...?

Nope, it appears not. So, really, you are just having an outburst.

Stick to the topic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim

Evolution, as driven in part by selection, is not random.

Do you want to understand why, or not?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

jwoodie said:


> As usual, its most strident advocates confuse evolution with adaptation. The former is a tidy theory with no direct evidence to back it up, whereas the latter is easily observable and replicated.



jwoodie

We are all dying to watch you replicate turning a brown bear into a white bear (your example of adaptation) by making it cold. Why haven't you, if it is so easy? Why hasn't anyone? Why has nobody observed this, if it is so easily observable?

So, this is easily observable and easily replicated, *AND* nobody has ever observed or replicated it (or has even done it once, much less replicated it). How do you reconcile these ideas? I have to know.


----------



## Mac1958

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who is paying attention knows, going back to single celled creatures, anyway. So it would be more accurate for us to say we don't know how single celled creatures got here, or where they came from.
> 
> But we do have a name for the process: abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

I understand that, and I find it very difficult to believe that there isn't life in our Solar System alone, let alone the rest of the universe.  I sure suspect there is.

What doesn't satisfy is the Big Bang Theory, the VERY beginning.  Even the multiverse theory leads me to ask where THAT began.
.


----------



## harmonica

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.


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


----------



## harmonica

Ringel05 said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of steps in between them. You can't name any, more recent, intermediate species?
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention. He is saying that is a meaningless term, as all species are "intermediate species".
Click to expand...

I think he was making a joke.  Hard to tell though.


----------



## rightwinger

A scientific explanation of evolution


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost
> 
> 
> 
> Neat! But it was not a random event. Selection is anything but random. So your talking point is bunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just love when an idiot who thinks men with boobs is a woman, tells me I am wrong...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, then maybe you would settle for the overwhelimg majority of the global scientific community...?
> 
> Nope, it appears not. So, really, you are just having an outburst.
> 
> Stick to the topic.
Click to expand...

No, just because insane people say something, doesnt make it true.


----------



## ChemEngineer

harmonica said:


> 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?


----------



## ChemEngineer

harmonica said:


> 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.


----------



## anynameyouwish

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.




I'll assume that your logic goes like this;

1. evolution is BS!
2.  MY GOD created everything
3. therefore everything belongs to my god
4. which becomes MY property because MY BIBLE says so
5. so all laws MUST come from MY bible
6. therefore there will be laws against all other religions, atheism, abortion, homosexuality, feminism, pot


----------



## ChemEngineer

[QUOTE="anynameyouwish, post: 23526036, member: 71593"

I'll *ass*ume that your logic goes like this;

1. evolution is BS!

[YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE]
2.  MY GOD created everything
3. therefore everything belongs to my god
4. which becomes MY property because MY BIBLE says so
5. so all laws MUST come from MY bible
6. therefore there will be laws against all other religions, atheism, abortion, homosexuality, feminism, pot[/QUOTE]

Your hyperemotional rant is mendacious and nonsensical.  Sometimes one crazy post is sufficient justification to add the writer to my Ignore List.  Yours is precisely that.
ciao


----------



## anynameyouwish

ChemEngineer said:


> [QUOTE="anynameyouwish, post: 23526036, member: 71593"
> 
> I'll *ass*ume that your logic goes like this;
> 
> 1. evolution is BS!
> 
> [YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE]
> 2.  MY GOD created everything
> 3. therefore everything belongs to my god
> 4. which becomes MY property because MY BIBLE says so
> 5. so all laws MUST come from MY bible
> 6. therefore there will be laws against all other religions, atheism, abortion, homosexuality, feminism, pot



Your hyperemotional rant is mendacious and nonsensical.  Sometimes one crazy post is sufficient justification to add the writer to my Ignore List.  Yours is precisely that.
ciao[/QUOTE]



I'll assume you are just a youngster (12?  13?) because your response was obviously made by someone lacking intelligence and reasonable logic.

1.  There are LOTS of christians in the good old USA who DO want a theocracy.

2.  They are called DOMINIONISTS.

3.  They actually exist and they are well organized.

4. consequently we encounter them on these message boards.

5. using the logic I listed;

there is a god
MY god
the USA is a CHRISTIAN nation
therefore my bible should be the source of law


I'm sorry you are too young, immature and ill-informed to know this.

Perhaps when you grow up your reasoning skills will improve!


----------



## rightwinger

ChemEngineer said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Evolution occurred. There is no denying it 
Why and how it occurs may be debated but the fact that complex creatures evolved from simpler creatures can’t


----------



## anynameyouwish

ChemEngineer said:


> [QUOTE="anynameyouwish, post: 23526036, member: 71593"
> 
> I'll *ass*ume that your logic goes like this;
> 
> 1. evolution is BS!
> 
> [YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE]
> 2.  MY GOD created everything
> 3. therefore everything belongs to my god
> 4. which becomes MY property because MY BIBLE says so
> 5. so all laws MUST come from MY bible
> 6. therefore there will be laws against all other religions, atheism, abortion, homosexuality, feminism, pot



Your hyperemotional rant is mendacious and nonsensical.  Sometimes one crazy post is sufficient justification to add the writer to my Ignore List.  Yours is precisely that.
ciao[/QUOTE]


btw.....

perhaps you should rethink your future employment.

A chemical engineer would need to be fairly intelligent and very logical.

You might be better off pushing a broom or picking things up and then putting them down.

Good luck in high school!


----------



## anynameyouwish

rightwinger said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution occurred. There is no denying it
> Why and how it occurs may be debated but the fact that complex creatures evolved from simpler creatures can’t
Click to expand...



rather scary that a child who wants to be a chemical engineer would be so ignorant, irrational and illogical.


----------



## Ringel05

harmonica said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you can't prove your claim that means it's bullshit
> no one has to disprove there is a god
Click to expand...




harmonica said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you can't prove your claim that means it's bullshit
> no one has to disprove there is a god
Click to expand...

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


----------



## TomParks

Evolution is a fairy tale....we didn’t evolve from apes, dolphins, Bigfoot, or aliens. There were no cavemen pulling the women by the hair. These same nut jobs push the paleo diet another fraud that never existed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim said:


> No, just because insane people say something, doesnt make it true.


Neat! But nobody has claimed that, so stop eating your own poor.

I asked you a question.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TomParks said:


> Evolution is a fairy tale....we didn’t evolve from apes, dolphins, Bigfoot, or aliens. There were no cavemen pulling the women by the hair. These same nut jobs push the paleo diet another fraud that never existed.


Please post religious horseshit in the religion section. Thanks.


----------



## rightwinger

TomParks said:


> Evolution is a fairy tale....we didn’t evolve from apes, dolphins, Bigfoot, or aliens. There were no cavemen pulling the women by the hair. These same nut jobs push the paleo diet another fraud that never existed.


Very true

The only reasonable explanation is that all creatures were created by magic 

Poof......there is a snail
Poof, poof, poof......how about some fishes
Poof, Poof, Poof.......Dinosaurs, reptiles and birds
POOF.......Human beings


----------



## anynameyouwish

rightwinger said:


> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fairy tale....we didn’t evolve from apes, dolphins, Bigfoot, or aliens. There were no cavemen pulling the women by the hair. These same nut jobs push the paleo diet another fraud that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> The only reasonable explanation is that all creatures were created by magic
> 
> Poof......there is a snail
> Poof, poof, poof......how about some fishes
> Poof, Poof, Poof.......Dinosaurs, reptiles and birds
> POOF.......Human beings
Click to expand...



and to make sure human beings are miserable....
poof....mosquitos....
poof.....black flies......
poof.....greenheads......
poof.....politics!


----------



## DGS49

The fact of "divine" creation has been obvious for ten thousand years.  But it's not scientific; it is simply an observation.  There is no other plausible explanation for the variety of life on this planet.  Obviously, the timeline of the Bible is unscientific nonsense, but the description of the creation of different species is consistent with what we can observe, and even the fossil record.

Darwin's theory is nice, and it explains how species EVOLVE in order to survive, but it has NO explanation for the creation of new species, and there is no tenable SCIENTIFIC theory extant that adequately explains how one species evolved into another.  In short, it cannot happen.

There is a 5-minute video at Prager U (PreviewPreview5:52Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven) that explains two *insurmountable* problems with Darwin's theory, but of course going from there to Genesis is also preposterous.

What is important to take away from this whole discussion of Evolution is that the Left not only does not believe in God; it abhors anything that might lead one to believe in "god."  Which is why, as with Climate Change, the people with the LEAST scientific knowledge argue most emphatically for "Evolution."


----------



## rightwinger

DGS49 said:


> The fact of "divine" creation has been obvious for ten thousand years.  But it's not scientific; it is simply an observation.  There is no other plausible explanation for the variety of life on this planet.  Obviously, the timeline of the Bible is unscientific nonsense, but the description of the creation of different species is consistent with what we can observe, and even the fossil record.
> 
> Darwin's theory is nice, and it explains how species EVOLVE in order to survive, but it has NO explanation for the creation of new species, and there is no tenable SCIENTIFIC theory extant that adequately explains how one species evolved into another.  In short, it cannot happen.
> 
> There is a 5-minute video at Prager U (PreviewPreview5:52Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven) that explains two *insurmountable* problems with Darwin's theory, but of course going from there to Genesis is also preposterous.
> 
> What is important to take away from this whole discussion of Evolution is that the Left not only does not believe in God; it abhors anything that might lead one to believe in "god."  Which is why, as with Climate Change, the people with the LEAST scientific knowledge argue most emphatically for "Evolution."


You are welcome to your faith

Just don’t pass it off as science


----------



## ChemEngineer

Ringel05 said:


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



Your strong suits are misplaced arrogance, condescension, and pettiness.  They are a few of the métiers of Leftists.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent


----------



## Ringel05

ChemEngineer said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it..........  I bet you graduated from the 2nd grade........, after 10 attempts.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your strong suits are misplaced arrogance, condescension, and pettiness.  They are a few of the métiers of Leftists.
> 
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
Click to expand...

Wow, did my point rocket over your head...........  Look up, see the pretty contrails........  
Oh and leftist, expected comeback but still funnier than all get out!!


----------



## ChemEngineer

rightwinger said:


> 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"?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Ringel05 said:


> Wow, did my point rocket over your head...........  Look up, see the pretty contrails........
> Oh and leftist, expected comeback but still funnier than all get out!!



You giggle to yourself while saying nothing.  I have no time to waste on giggly boys.
Join your friends on my Ignore List.  
ciao


----------



## Ringel05

ChemEngineer said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, did my point rocket over your head...........  Look up, see the pretty contrails........
> Oh and leftist, expected comeback but still funnier than all get out!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You giggle to yourself while saying nothing.  I have no time to waste on giggly boys.
> Join your friends on my Ignore List.
> ciao
Click to expand...

COOL!!!!!  Pathetic twit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DGS49 said:


> Darwin's theory is nice, and it explains how species EVOLVE in order to survive, but it has NO explanation for the creation of new species,


Ridiculously false. That is literally the central concept explained by evolution. You would fail a 10th grade science test. Religious nonsense goes in the religion section.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


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


No, I call that the insane ramblings of a delusional religious person (That's you).


----------



## rightwinger

ChemEngineer said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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"?
Click to expand...


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

What supports your view?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They support their views with scientific evidence of Biology, Geology, Fossil Records and DNA
> 
> What supports your view?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## ChemEngineer

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> Rightwinger, no Darwinists do NOT support their views with scientific evidence.



You sound like an idiot.


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They support their views with scientific evidence of Biology, Geology, Fossil Records and DNA
> 
> What supports your view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 times 10 to the 150th.....or something.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## rightwinger

ChemEngineer said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Reams of scientific evidence supporting evolution

Biological comparisons, fossil analysis, geological strata showing increasing biological complexity, DNA mapping

Ummmm....you lose


----------



## harmonica

Ringel05 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you can't prove your claim that means it's bullshit
> no one has to disprove there is a god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you can't prove your claim that means it's bullshit
> no one has to disprove there is a god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it..........  I bet you graduated from the 2nd grade........, after 10 attempts.........
Click to expand...

the typical dumbass response when you can't refute it


----------



## harmonica

ChemEngineer said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

still--that's no proof of creation--plain and simple
hahhahahahahhahahahhaha


----------



## harmonica

ChemEngineer said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## harmonica

ChemEngineer said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

ChemEngineer said:


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


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

Hollie said:


> 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

ChemEngineer said:


> 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

harmonica said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you can't prove your claim that means it's bullshit
> no one has to disprove there is a god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you can't prove your claim that means it's bullshit
> no one has to disprove there is a god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it..........  I bet you graduated from the 2nd grade........, after 10 attempts.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the typical dumbass response when you can't refute it
Click to expand...

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

ChemEngineer said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 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,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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)
Click to expand...


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

ChemEngineer said:


> _
> 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

ChemEngineer said:


> 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

ChemEngineer said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Is it this?

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

rightwinger said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They support their views with scientific evidence of Biology, Geology, Fossil Records and DNA
> 
> What supports your view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 times 10 to the 150th.....or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution occurred .....there is no denying it
Click to expand...


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

ChemEngineer said:


> *"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

ChemEngineer said:


> 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

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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

You?  Not so much.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> 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

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m pretty sure the he/she is a ChemE.
> 
> You?  Not so much.
Click to expand...


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.....


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m pretty sure the he/she is a ChemE.
> 
> You?  Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.....
Click to expand...


Isn't it great being an anonymous poster poser on a message board?

You can live the fantasy that you have "communicated" with people. Are you self-medicating to deal with the voices that command you to perform tasks?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

This may come as a shock:

This "new" sock is also a right wing nut job.


----------



## ChemEngineer

The main thread headline shows a message from ignoredmember but ignoredmember is appropriately on my Ignore List.    See like most other right-thinking people, I self-correct and don't bother reading the remarks of people who add nothing to any conversation.   "Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible



*"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


----------



## cnm

Reiny


> Wow ... thank you for to honor of being on your ignore list ... I'll cherish this moment for all eternity ...
> 
> Someone quote me so he has to read this ...


I'll do it but I have a sneaky feeling I was there before you.


----------



## cnm

andaronjim said:


> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry. Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.


Hilarity. If we all looked like Picasso pictures then that would be the ideal.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

cnm said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry. Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarity. If we all looked like Picasso pictures then that would be the ideal.
Click to expand...

That would be a random grouping of cells. What a dunce.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry. Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarity. If we all looked like Picasso pictures then that would be the ideal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a random grouping of cells. What a dunce.
Click to expand...

The "dunce" would be the person who doesn't understand that evolution is not random, and who also doesn't want to learn why it isn't.

Hint: that's you.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> The main thread headline shows a message from ignoredmember but ignoredmember is appropriately on my Ignore List.    See like most other right-thinking people, I self-correct and don't bother reading the remarks of people who add nothing to any conversation.   "Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible
> 
> 
> 
> *"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



Haeckel's drawings are a favorite of the hyper-religious in their attempts to vilify science. The exaggerated drawings have a life of their own among the extremist creation ministries. 

Sone could say that cience is a self-correcting mechanism in that the various disciplines rely on evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on the planet, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

Here’s a ball, Mr. fundie crank. Go play in the street.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry. Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarity. If we all looked like Picasso pictures then that would be the ideal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a random grouping of cells. What a dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "dunce" would be the person who doesn't understand that evolution is not random, and who also doesn't want to learn why it isn't.
> 
> Hint: that's you.
Click to expand...

So when at the beginning cells just happened to get together and form the end result, isnt a jumble of mixed up flesh, but almost a perfect being , until you came along, that took you right back to the Neanderthal.  Stupid fuck.


----------



## cnm

andaronjim said:


> So when at the beginning cells just happened to get together and form the end result, isnt a jumble of mixed up flesh, but almost a perfect being , until you came along, that took you right back to the Neanderthal. Stupid fuck.


So why isn't the being perfect if it's intelligently designed?


----------



## ChemEngineer

cnm said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when at the beginning cells just happened to get together and form the end result, isnt a jumble of mixed up flesh, but almost a perfect being , until you came along, that took you right back to the Neanderthal. Stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> *So why isn't the being perfect if it's intelligently designed?*
Click to expand...


* The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. - *Brandolini, Italian computer programmer, 2013

When Godless Leftists (but I repeat myself) aren't oohing and aahing at the wonders of the universe, and how "perfectly adapted" (nota bene, not "perfectly evolved," but "perfectly adapted") every animal is, wherever it is, they're condemning why things aren't "perfect" in their brilliant, perfect Liberalthink.

How many years does the most "perfect" car run before it is relegated to the junkyard?  Now how long is the average life expectancy of an American, a happily married one?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry. Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarity. If we all looked like Picasso pictures then that would be the ideal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a random grouping of cells. What a dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "dunce" would be the person who doesn't understand that evolution is not random, and who also doesn't want to learn why it isn't.
> 
> Hint: that's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when at the beginning cells just happened to get together and form the end result, isnt a jumble of mixed up flesh, but almost a perfect being , until you came along, that took you right back to the Neanderthal.  Stupid fuck.
Click to expand...

Again, that wasn't random. So you are the one who sounds stupid. And what makes you seem doubly stupid is that you want to stay stupid and don't want to learn why it wasn't random.

Or do you?


----------



## cnm

ChemEngineer said:


> When Godless Leftists (but I repeat myself) aren't oohing and aahing at the wonders of the universe, and how "perfectly adapted" (nota bene, not "perfectly evolved," but "perfectly adapted") every animal is, wherever it is, they're condemning why things aren't "perfect" in their brilliant, perfect Liberalthink.
> 
> How many years does the most "perfect" car run before it is relegated to the junkyard?


So, if I have this right, gods are as intelligent as the average automotive engineer. Who'd have thunk?


----------



## ChemEngineer

cnm said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Godless Leftists (but I repeat myself) aren't oohing and aahing at the wonders of the universe, and how "perfectly adapted" (nota bene, not "perfectly evolved," but "perfectly adapted") every animal is, wherever it is, they're condemning why things aren't "perfect" in their brilliant, perfect Liberalthink.
> 
> How many years does the most "perfect" car run before it is relegated to the junkyard?
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I have this right, gods are as intelligent as the average automotive engineer. Who'd have thunk?
Click to expand...


Not you.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay here goes one more thing. If it was all a random event that proper proteins came together, we would look like a Picasso picture not some organized event where we have almost prefect proportions along with symmetry. Some type of intelligent design had to have a hand in the creations.
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarity. If we all looked like Picasso pictures then that would be the ideal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be a random grouping of cells. What a dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "dunce" would be the person who doesn't understand that evolution is not random, and who also doesn't want to learn why it isn't.
> 
> Hint: that's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when at the beginning cells just happened to get together and form the end result, isnt a jumble of mixed up flesh, but almost a perfect being , until you came along, that took you right back to the Neanderthal.  Stupid fuck.
Click to expand...

Hey genius....

Cold climate is a slection pressure. For instance, it acts as a pressure on fur color.

Does this selective pressure produce random fur colors? Or do you think you could puzzle out a consistent pattern? Take your time.


----------



## ChemEngineer

"A book is proof that humans are capable of magic." - Carl Sagan

"My wonder button is being pushed all the time." - Carl Sagan

Now any time a person of faith expresses the wonders surrounding us as powerful, indeed incontrovertible evidence of our Creator is invariably snarked by the Godless Left (the counterpart to "the Religious Right," of course). _ "You're simply ignorant of science! _ That's* the argument from incredulity, *ha ha ha".  

Was astronomer, professor, author Carl Sagan likewise ignorant of science?  Of course not.  He was one of them, a liberal agnostic, whose memorial service was ironically held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.

Carl never deviated from the Darwinian Paradigm, but he often expressed The Fallacy of the Argument From Incredulity, which the Darwin Camp utilizes with such sneering contempt, but only against people making the argument for Nature's God, our Creator.  There may be many religions, but there is only one Creator of the Universe.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> "A book is proof that humans are capable of magic." - Carl Sagan
> 
> "My wonder button is being pushed all the time." - Carl Sagan
> 
> Now any time a person of faith expresses the wonders surrounding us as powerful, indeed incontrovertible evidence of our Creator is invariably snarked by the Godless Left (the counterpart to "the Religious Right," of course). _ "You're simply ignorant of science! _ That's* the argument from incredulity, *ha ha ha".
> 
> Was astronomer, professor, author Carl Sagan likewise ignorant of science?  Of course not.  He was one of them, a liberal agnostic, whose memorial service was ironically held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.
> 
> Carl never deviated from the Darwinian Paradigm, but he often expressed The Fallacy of the Argument From Incredulity, which the Darwin Camp utilizes with such sneering contempt, but only against people making the argument for Nature's God, our Creator.  There may be many religions, but there is only one Creator of the Universe.



Your unsubstantiated and partisan claims to gods are no different than competing claims to unsubstantiated and partisan gods.

The argument from ignorance lends no credibility to your versions of gods vs. any others.

Your silly "... because I say so" statements are pointless and time wasting.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Your unsubstantiated and partisan claims to gods are no different than competing claims to unsubstantiated and partisan gods.


Precisely. He also is tasked with arguing why his god is the only god, and all the others are false.

Of course,THIS ISN'T THE CORRECT SECTION FOR THIS RELIGIOUS HORSESHIT. These nutballs have an entire section of the message board dedicated to their magical delusions. But no, these guys cant be satisfied with that. It's a microcosm and a perfect illustration of how they act in the world.


----------



## ChemEngineer

*"The Fallacy of the Argument From Incredulity" Snark*


“My wonder button is being pushed all the time.”  ― * Carl Sagan   *


Anyone of faith who points out the wonders surrounding us as powerful, indeed incontrovertible evidence of our Creator is invariably snarked by the Godless Left (the counterpart to "the Religious Right," of course). _ "You're simply ignorant of science! _ That's the argument from incredulity, ha ha ha".  This is a favorite of Richard Dawkins.  


Was astronomer, professor, author Carl Sagan likewise ignorant of science?  Of course not.  He was one of them, a liberal agnostic, whose memorial service was ironically held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.

*______________*

*The Failure of Science Educators*


Recent opinion polls show that 25-50% of adult Americans do not know that the Earth goes around the Sun and takes a year to do it.” - Carl Sagan, _*Carl Sagan's Universe,*_ page 146

Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one. - The Late Milton Friedman







*November, 2017  A YouGov survey found that more millennials would rather live in a socialist (44%) or communist (7%) country than a capitalist one (42%).  America and our once cherished ideals are doomed.*


*“In 1950, we spent (in 1989 dollars) $1,333 per student. In 1989 we spent $4931. As John Silber, the President of Boston University, has written, ‘It is troubling that this nearly fourfold increase in real spending has brought no improvement. It is scandalous that it has not prevented substantial decline.’ ”  – William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education, in The De-Valuing of America*


----------



## luchitociencia

ChemEngineer said:


> "A book is proof that humans are capable of magic." - Carl Sagan
> 
> "My wonder button is being pushed all the time." - Carl Sagan
> 
> Now any time a person of faith expresses the wonders surrounding us as powerful, indeed incontrovertible evidence of our Creator is invariably snarked by the Godless Left (the counterpart to "the Religious Right," of course). _ "You're simply ignorant of science! _ That's* the argument from incredulity, *ha ha ha".
> 
> Was astronomer, professor, author Carl Sagan likewise ignorant of science?  Of course not.  He was one of them, a liberal agnostic, whose memorial service was ironically held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.
> 
> Carl never deviated from the Darwinian Paradigm, but he often expressed The Fallacy of the Argument From Incredulity, which the Darwin Camp utilizes with such sneering contempt, but only against people making the argument for Nature's God, our Creator.  There may be many religions, but there is only one Creator of the Universe.


I completely disagree with what you say.

Carl Sagan was just a showman.

And about evolution, it doesn't reach the level of being a fraudulent theory of science. 

The theory of evolution is just a belief.


----------



## alang1216

ChemEngineer said:


> Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one. - The Late Milton Friedman


In my neck of the woods, we elect our school board and they run the schools.  Isn't that democracy?



ChemEngineer said:


> *November, 2017  A YouGov survey found that more millennials would rather live in a socialist (44%) or communist (7%) country than a capitalist one (42%).  America and our once cherished ideals are doomed.*


I think *unregulated *capitalism is to economics as natural selection is to biology.  While it may make the population stronger, it is brutal and amoral.  I personally don't want to live that way and I'd guess millennials don't either.  If we did a better job of policing capitalism, other forms might not have such an appeal.


----------



## ChemEngineer

alang1216 said:


> In my neck of the woods, we elect our school board and they run the schools.  Isn't that democracy?



Why don't you be so kind as to name a "neck of the woods" where they do NOT elect the school board.



> I think *unregulated *capitalism is to economics as natural selection is to biology.  While it may make the population stronger, it is brutal and amoral.  I personally don't want to live that way and I'd guess millennials don't either.  If we did a better job of policing capitalism, other forms might not have such an appeal.



If you think capitalism is "unregulated" anywhere in the world, much less the United States, you are* brutally *mistaken, and I would add intentionally so.

You think that you Leftists can "do a better job" of policing everything. Why don't you hie thee to Detroit and enjoy life in Leftist Nirvana.  Detroit is "policed" by people who *think* like you do.  It's not working out any more than socialism has anywhere.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?


Because evolution is not science...…………….It's religious Darwinist babbling


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not science...…………….It's religious Darwinist babbling
Click to expand...

Maybe on USMB... Nassomuch in the real world


----------



## luchitociencia

The most idiotic theories are relativity and evolution.

Both of them claim to be valid because they predict and the empirical test or observation coincides with their prediction.

They won't explain the phenomena but solely predict scenarios.

Then, you the evolutionist, in base of the obtained data since your ape alike man into today's man, predict how man will be  10,000 years from now and give your reasons.

Lets play with your imagination.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not science...…………….It's religious Darwinist babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe on USMB... Nassomuch in the real world
Click to expand...

Again kid there is no evidence of abiogenesis, you keep saying that there is but never present this evidence.

That kid is the real world


----------



## alang1216

Frannie said:


> Again kid there is no evidence of abiogenesis, you keep saying that there is but never present this evidence.
> 
> That kid is the real world


I think the evidence is pretty convincing: there is life on this planet.


----------



## ChemEngineer

alang1216 said:


> I think the evidence is pretty convincing: there is life on this planet.



Deep!  "There is life on this planet."  

What else have you to contribute of such a profound and intellectual nature?


----------



## alang1216

ChemEngineer said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the evidence is pretty convincing: there is life on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deep!  "There is life on this planet."
> 
> What else have you to contribute of such a profound and intellectual nature?
Click to expand...

So we agree "There is life on this planet".  Can we also agree that the planet existed before there was life on it?  If so there are only two possible options for life to appear: it came from elsewhere (which only begs the question of how it came to be there) or it was came to be here from non-living materials, in other words, _*abiogenesis*_.  I doubt the former so it must have been the later.  Too deep?


----------



## ChemEngineer

alang1216 said:


> So we agree "There is life on this planet".  Can we also agree that the planet existed before there was life on it?



You're on a roll.  Yes the planet preceded life. Almost as deep as your first Enunciation.



> If so there are only two possible options for life to appear: it came from elsewhere (which only begs the question of how it came to be there) or it was came to be here from non-living materials, in other words, _*abiogenesis*_.  I doubt the former so it must have been the later.  (sic)  Too deep?



A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or taste not the Perian Spring. - Alexander Pope

The Miller-Urey Experiment famously suggested what you are leading up to.  The trouble is that the Miller-Urey Experiment was flawed from the beginning.  Moreover, it was in a carefully controlled laboratory, with flasks and equipment set up by a PhD and his student.  They made erroneous assumptions in the process of synthesizing two or three simple amino acids, in extremely small and utterly useless quantities which constituted racemic mixtures, not the L-isomers we find in our own bodies.  Other than that, spell "latter" correctly.  "Too deep?"


----------



## alang1216

ChemEngineer said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree "There is life on this planet".  Can we also agree that the planet existed before there was life on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're on a roll.  Yes the planet preceded life. Almost as deep as your first Enunciation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so there are only two possible options for life to appear: it came from elsewhere (which only begs the question of how it came to be there) or it was came to be here from non-living materials, in other words, _*abiogenesis*_.  I doubt the former so it must have been the later.  (sic)  Too deep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or taste not the Perian Spring. - Alexander Pope
> 
> The Miller-Urey Experiment famously suggested what you are leading up to.  The trouble is that the Miller-Urey Experiment was flawed from the beginning.  Moreover, it was in a carefully controlled laboratory, with flasks and equipment set up by a PhD and his student.  They made erroneous assumptions in the process of synthesizing two or three simple amino acids, in extremely small and utterly useless quantities which constituted racemic mixtures, not the L-isomers we find in our own bodies.  Other than that, spell "latter" correctly.  "Too deep?"
Click to expand...

I think you've been distracted by the mechanisms of abiogenesis.  There is much speculation on that but, probably any evidence is long since gone.  Doesn't change the FACT of abiogenesis.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?



Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.

One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.


----------



## Votto

Mac1958 said:


> No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.
> 
> Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.



Except for MAC who knows the truth.

You better not tell or God is going to be pretty upset with you!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Except for MAC who knows the truth


Actually, it seems to only be the religious nutballs who claim to know.


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for MAC who knows the truth
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it seems to only be the religious nutballs who claim to know.
Click to expand...


So you don't know?


----------



## ChemEngineer

alang1216 said:


> I think you've been distracted by the mechanisms of abiogenesis.  There is much speculation on that but, probably any evidence is long since gone.  Doesn't change the FACT of abiogenesis.



No evidence but it's a "FACT."  
You're very wise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for MAC who knows the truth
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it seems to only be the religious nutballs who claim to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know?
Click to expand...

Exactly how life came to be? No. Do you?


----------



## Mac1958

Votto said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.
> 
> Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.
> 
> 
> 
> Except for MAC who knows the truth.
> 
> You better not tell or God is going to be pretty upset with you!!
Click to expand...

A weird reach, since you just quoted me saying that no one knows.

Try again.
.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
Click to expand...


That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.

Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.

The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been distracted by the mechanisms of abiogenesis.  There is much speculation on that but, probably any evidence is long since gone.  Doesn't change the FACT of abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence but it's a "FACT."
> You're very wise.
Click to expand...

You're very ignorant. 

The fact that life exists on the planet is not in question. Abiogenesis in some form obviously occurred. Either the process was naturally occurring or one or more of the gods made it happen. 

You shouldn't presume that everything you read on Harun Yahya's website is necessarily true.

So, I was expecting that you would present your data debunking abiogenesis with a comprehensive and detailed account of how one or more of the various gods magically created life on the planet. 

You can do that, right?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been distracted by the mechanisms of abiogenesis.  There is much speculation on that but, probably any evidence is long since gone.  Doesn't change the FACT of abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence but it's a "FACT."
> You're very wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're very ignorant.
> 
> The fact that life exists on the planet is not in question. Abiogenesis in some form obviously occurred. Either the process was naturally occurring or one or more of the gods made it happen.
> 
> You shouldn't presume that everything you read on Harun Yahya's website is necessarily true.
> 
> So, I was expecting that you would present your data debunking abiogenesis with a comprehensive and detailed account of how one or more of the various gods magically created life on the planet.
> 
> You can do that, right?
Click to expand...

 Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been distracted by the mechanisms of abiogenesis.  There is much speculation on that but, probably any evidence is long since gone.  Doesn't change the FACT of abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence but it's a "FACT."
> You're very wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're very ignorant.
> 
> The fact that life exists on the planet is not in question. Abiogenesis in some form obviously occurred. Either the process was naturally occurring or one or more of the gods made it happen.
> 
> You shouldn't presume that everything you read on Harun Yahya's website is necessarily true.
> 
> So, I was expecting that you would present your data debunking abiogenesis with a comprehensive and detailed account of how one or more of the various gods magically created life on the planet.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Click to expand...

Wrong section.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been distracted by the mechanisms of abiogenesis.  There is much speculation on that but, probably any evidence is long since gone.  Doesn't change the FACT of abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence but it's a "FACT."
> You're very wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're very ignorant.
> 
> The fact that life exists on the planet is not in question. Abiogenesis in some form obviously occurred. Either the process was naturally occurring or one or more of the gods made it happen.
> 
> You shouldn't presume that everything you read on Harun Yahya's website is necessarily true.
> 
> So, I was expecting that you would present your data debunking abiogenesis with a comprehensive and detailed account of how one or more of the various gods magically created life on the planet.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong section.
Click to expand...

And with that, all regard for investigation is simply handed over to agnostics and atheists --- who know everything and believe that they are totally correct and without reproach. So ends any other consideration, and education is solely the lecturing platform for evolution who promote* ME, MYSELF* and *I* logic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> And with that, all regard for investigation is simply handed over to agnostics and atheists --


Damn that is stupid. For one, some scientists are religious. Second, their magical beliefs (or lack thereof) have no bearing on the science.

Please post your magical horseshit in the Religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.


----------



## mamooth

ChemEngineer said:


> *The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's Go*


That OP is rehash of the old debunked all-or-nothing fallacy.

It assumes the proteins had to spontaneously form fully-formed. That's completely wrong. The proteins formed as a serious of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful, and thus selected for by natural selection. The probabilities of each beneficial individual step happening were pretty high, so they happened.

Thus, the OP's fallacy crumbles.

Here's a long detailed summary overview of the fallacy:

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Needless to say, the OP will refuse to read it.But then, it's not as if he could understand it anyways. He knows what his religion tells him, and nothing more. His religious fanaticism has effectively lobotomized him, leaving him with the reasoning abilities and temperament of a toddler.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with that, all regard for investigation is simply handed over to agnostics and atheists --
> 
> 
> 
> Damn that is stupid. For one, some scientists are religious. Second, their magical beliefs (or lack thereof) have no bearing on the science.
> 
> Please post your magical horseshit in the Religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Atheists can be "religious". I have a relationship with the Creator and that is far greater than some concocted criteria to live by. Silly "Christians " are those that say they believe in GOD and say that Jesus arose from the dead and was born to a virgin, and that Jesus healed the sick and brought the dead back to life.. And then say there is no possible way that GOD could do what He said in Genesis. I see all such people as misguided, arrogant, and without any faith in the GOD they say they believe in.

And as for you and people like yourself, I see you all as lost and seeking merely for excuses for all your behavior pattern problems --- so you can run from any personal responsibility.  This is why kids in public schools shoot others, and abortion is acceptable, and premarital sex is regarded as "sophisticated", and why gay marriage is presumed normal, and why the courts are loaded with lawsuits, and people run after the latest and greatest newfangled material crap or think drinking, drugs and sex is all there is to life.

The very proof of GOD is in the world you are creating with all your ignorance of HIM. I do not blame you! I in fact blame the silly people who call themselves "Christians" and then reject everything the Bible says as mere superstition. They in fact have handed you the world on a platter and said, "Do what you wish, you know what is best!"


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.
> 
> The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.
Click to expand...


First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.

ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.  I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends.  It's not millions of years of pressure.  That would break rocks.  I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people.  I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.

The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly.  Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition.  Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle.  You have fear of having to obey God.  You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.
> 
> The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.
> 
> ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.  I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends.  It's not millions of years of pressure.  That would break rocks.  I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people.  I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.
> 
> The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly.  Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition.  Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle.  You have fear of having to obey God.  You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.
Click to expand...

That emotional outburst is just a reconfiguration of your usual outbursts. 

Your revulsion for science and knowledge is a function of your religious extremism. Science and knowledge conflicts with the fears superstitions that haunt your world. 

Don't be an accomplice to fear and superstition.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.
> 
> The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.
> 
> ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.  I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends.  It's not millions of years of pressure.  That would break rocks.  I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people.  I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.
> 
> The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly.  Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition.  Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle.  You have fear of having to obey God.  You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.
Click to expand...


*ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.*

How young? How do you know?


----------



## LittleNipper

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.
> 
> The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.
> 
> ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.  I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends.  It's not millions of years of pressure.  That would break rocks.  I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people.  I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.
> 
> The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly.  Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition.  Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle.  You have fear of having to obey God.  You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.*
> 
> How young? How do you know?
Click to expand...

Did GOD create a physically mature Adam and then Eve, or did God create a little baby. I firmly have no problem believing that GOD created a perfect environment and then a fully grown man to take care of it and nurture it.


----------



## ChemEngineer

The saw "Creation is not science" is of course correct.  God made science and is forever beyond its ken.

You must either believe that the universe made itself, from nothing into everything, or Nature's God made it, endowed with elegance, beauty, correspondence, countless restorative cycles from the carbon cycle to the water cycle to the oxygen cycle to decay and return to the elements.  Many of our bodily processes are, so far as we can tell, 100% efficient.  No man-made compound can convert sunlight into carbohydrates as efficiently as chlorophyll.  Human hemoglobin defies LeChatelier's Principle.   "Luck" do ya think?    I say No Way, Jose.
The physicians I see emphatically agree, and they know something about biochemistry and such truck.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

Lol, Richard Lenski had proven evolution of E-Coli strains.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

LittleNipper said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.
> 
> The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.
> 
> ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.  I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends.  It's not millions of years of pressure.  That would break rocks.  I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people.  I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.
> 
> The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly.  Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition.  Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle.  You have fear of having to obey God.  You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.*
> 
> How young? How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did GOD create a physically mature Adam and then Eve, or did God create a little baby. I firmly have no problem believing that GOD created a perfect environment and then a fully grown man to take care of it and nurture it.
Click to expand...


That is awesome!!

Now, about that proof......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChemEngineer said:


> The saw "Creation is not science" is of course correct.  God made science and is forever beyond its ken.
> 
> You must either believe that the universe made itself, from nothing into everything, or Nature's God made it, endowed with elegance, beauty, correspondence, countless restorative cycles from the carbon cycle to the water cycle to the oxygen cycle to decay and return to the elements.  Many of our bodily processes are, so far as we can tell, 100% efficient.  No man-made compound can convert sunlight into carbohydrates as efficiently as chlorophyll.  Human hemoglobin defies LeChatelier's Principle.   "Luck" do ya think?    I say No Way, Jose.
> The physicians I see emphatically agree, and they know something about biochemistry and such truck.



* Many of our bodily processes are, so far as we can tell, 100% efficient.*

Which ones?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> I firmly have no problem believing that GOD created a perfect environment and then a fully grown man to take care of it and nurture it.


Then head on over to the Religion section and preach it. This is the science section.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Lol, Richard Lenski had proven evolution of E-Coli strains.


Evolution is why the flu shot is different every year.


----------



## ChemEngineer

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Lol, Richard Lenski had proven evolution of E-Coli strains.



You don't understand evolution.  He demonstrated adaptation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, Richard Lenski had proven evolution of E-Coli strains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand evolution.  He demonstrated adaptation.
Click to expand...

False. Wrong again. As usual. You clearly know less than nothing about this topic.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.
> 
> The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.
> 
> ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.  I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends.  It's not millions of years of pressure.  That would break rocks.  I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people.  I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.
> 
> The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly.  Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition.  Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle.  You have fear of having to obey God.  You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.*
> 
> How young? How do you know?
Click to expand...


Around 6000 yrs according to Biblical history.

ToE needs long time and still doesn't happen.  There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.  How do you know how old someone is?  You look it up or ask for a birth certificate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.
> 
> The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.
> 
> ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.  I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends.  It's not millions of years of pressure.  That would break rocks.  I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people.  I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.
> 
> The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly.  Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition.  Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle.  You have fear of having to obey God.  You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.*
> 
> How young? How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Around 6000 yrs according to Biblical history.
> 
> ToE needs long time and still doesn't happen.  There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.  How do you know how old someone is?  You look it up or ask for a birth certificate.
Click to expand...


*Around 6000 yrs according to Biblical history.*

Your science depends on a list of begats?

* There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.*

There is, actually.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Isn't it fascinating that the godless left is so eager to invoke the Holy Bible in any discussion of evolution?
They despise the Book but bring it up constantly, while condemning it as utterly fictional.  You can't talk science without them bringing up what they call "fiction."  Unintelligent and anti-science, but that's the godless left for you.

Whether the earth is hundreds of millions of years old or not is immaterial to the anti-science and growing failures of Neo-Darwinism. It's more fit because it survives and it survives because it's more fit.  Wow.  That tells you precisely nothing.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really nonsensical as you obviously have no "math" to support your unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Your silly conspiracy theories surrounding science do nothing to refute the facts presented by the relevant disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, the earth sciences, etc.
> 
> The only appeals to magic, fear and superstition I see are coming from the religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you can't do the math, but I've done it and it may as well be zero chance.
> 
> ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.  I used chemistry to show how rock is formed from sediment and bends.  It's not millions of years of pressure.  That would break rocks.  I used paleontology to show there was no prehistoric cave people.  I used earth science to show the Grand Canyon happened by a giant flood.
> 
> The magic is on the evolution side as apes did not become bipedal nor dinosaurs did not develop feathers to fly.  Evolution has no origins, but magic, fear, and superstition.  Magic of big bang, cosmic expansion, abiogenesis, and Copernican Principle.  You have fear of having to obey God.  You have superstition of aliens, multiverses, common ancestors, long time of millions and billions of years, the universe came from a quantum particle, and the present is the key to the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *ToE has been shown to be false by a young Earth.*
> 
> How young? How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did GOD create a physically mature Adam and then Eve, or did God create a little baby. I firmly have no problem believing that GOD created a perfect environment and then a fully grown man to take care of it and nurture it.
Click to expand...


And later, according to the fable, the gods wiped humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment. 

Those gods, they're such kidders.


----------



## ChemEngineer

More's the pity.  IgnoredMember appears to be the last to post on this thread, but … he's truly an Ignored Member to me, so ….. that's the Magic Wand of Selection for you.  He got selected right out.

34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?  Shirley you jest.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChemEngineer said:


> More's the pity.  IgnoredMember appears to be the last to post on this thread, but … he's truly an Ignored Member to me, so ….. that's the Magic Wand of Selection for you.  He got selected right out.
> 
> 34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?  Shirley you jest.



*34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?*

Which Darwinists think that? Link?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?*
> 
> Which Darwinists think that? Link?



All of them.  "A>B>C>D"

If you don't get it, then you don't understand evolution. It's all so "simple" with a wave of the Magic Wand of Selection.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChemEngineer said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?*
> 
> Which Darwinists think that? Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.  "A>B>C>D"
> 
> If you don't get it, then you don't understand evolution. It's all so "simple" with a wave of the Magic Wand of Selection.
Click to expand...


*All of them. "A>B>C>D"*

Link?


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> More's the pity.  IgnoredMember appears to be the last to post on this thread, but … he's truly an Ignored Member to me, so ….. that's the Magic Wand of Selection for you.  He got selected right out.
> 
> 34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?  Shirley you jest.



Gee whiz. Thousands of gods invented by humans and the religious extremist thinks his gods somehow supersede all the other gods.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> More's the pity.  IgnoredMember appears to be the last to post on this thread, but … he's truly an Ignored Member to me, so ….. that's the Magic Wand of Selection for you.  He got selected right out.
> 
> 34,350 amino acid residues in titin alone and Darwinists think the first molecule produced from a random mutation defied the insuperable statistics of 1 in 20 to the 34,350th power?  Shirley you jest.



Ignored member is obviously not ignored. 

Ignored member refuted your nonsense claims causing you to tuck your tail in and skedaddle.


----------



## rightwinger

ChemEngineer said:


> Isn't it fascinating that the godless left is so eager to invoke the Holy Bible in any discussion of evolution?
> They despise the Book but bring it up constantly, while condemning it as utterly fictional.  You can't talk science without them bringing up what they call "fiction."  Unintelligent and anti-science, but that's the godless left for you.
> 
> Whether the earth is hundreds of millions of years old or not is immaterial to the anti-science and growing failures of Neo-Darwinism. It's more fit because it survives and it survives because it's more fit.  Wow.  That tells you precisely nothing.


Not fiction, a fairy tale meant to confuse the masses


----------



## LittleNipper

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Lol, Richard Lenski had proven evolution of E-Coli strains.


So, you're saying E-Coli produces E-Coli, begets E-Coli, stays E-Coli. This is exactly wahr Creationists believe. It is one thing to show/demonstrate that any organism has the fortitude to try to persevere and or reproduce. But it has never been shown that any organism is slowly changing into another organism with each passing generations. As a Christian, I most certainly believe that everything in nature is unique to one degree or another. However I've never been shown how bacteria develops into an amoeba.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> But it has never been shown that any organism is slowly changing into another organism with each passing generations.


Of course, this is false. Speciation has, in fact, been observed. And this is a stupid argument anyway. Profound changes take profoundly long periods of time. We haven't observed stars igniting either, but we know they do. We haven't watched planets form from disks, but we know they do.  The changes simply will add up over time. It's inevitable.  If you separate two populations of any species for any length of time, they will speciate from one another, eventually. You couldn't stop it if you tried. Even without any new mutations, genetic drift would cause them to speciate, given enough time. And that's not a "hypothesis" or a "guess"; that's an absolute, mathematical certainty.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

LittleNipper said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, Richard Lenski had proven evolution of E-Coli strains.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're saying E-Coli produces E-Coli, begets E-Coli, stays E-Coli. This is exactly wahr Creationists believe. It is one thing to show/demonstrate that any organism has the fortitude to try to persevere and or reproduce. But it has never been shown that any organism is slowly changing into another organism with each passing generations. As a Christian, I most certainly believe that everything in nature is unique to one degree or another. However I've never been shown how bacteria develops into an amoeba.
Click to expand...


*But it has never been shown that any organism is slowly changing into another organism with each passing generations.*

Never ever? Link?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your science depends on a list of begats?



Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys.  We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time.. 

*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> There is, actually.



Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your science depends on a list of begats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys.  We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..
Click to expand...


*Sure, it's better than evolution*






*Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..*

Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your science depends on a list of begats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys.  We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, it's better than evolution*
> 
> View attachment 295203
> 
> *Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..*
> 
> Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..
Click to expand...


I'm going to assume you lost.  You said, "There is, actually," and then proceeded to not provide anything.  Sorry, loser.  Better luck next time when you have something .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your science depends on a list of begats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys.  We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, it's better than evolution*
> 
> View attachment 295203
> 
> *Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..*
> 
> Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you lost.  You said, "There is, actually," and then proceeded to not provide anything.  Sorry, loser.  Better luck next time when you have something .
Click to expand...


*You said, "There is, actually,"*

I only said that because it's true.

Did you have proof for your claim, "*There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old"*?

Or was, "*Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years.." *supposed to be your proof?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
Click to expand...

So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for MAC who knows the truth
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it seems to only be the religious nutballs who claim to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly how life came to be? No. Do you?
Click to expand...

Then why do you keep claiming you do know?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your science depends on a list of begats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys.  We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, it's better than evolution*
> 
> View attachment 295203
> 
> *Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..*
> 
> Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you lost.  You said, "There is, actually," and then proceeded to not provide anything.  Sorry, loser.  Better luck next time when you have something .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You said, "There is, actually,"*
> 
> I only said that because it's true.
> 
> Did you have proof for your claim, "*There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old"*?
> 
> Or was, "*Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years.." *supposed to be your proof?
Click to expand...


It's not true.  Ho hum.  You know nothing and are boring, so I won the argument and you are dismissed.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Evolution is magic, you stupid, farking dumbass.  Big bang could not happen from singularity.  We can't even have singularity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your science depends on a list of begats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys.  We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure, it's better than evolution*
> 
> View attachment 295203
> 
> *Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..*
> 
> Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you lost.  You said, "There is, actually," and then proceeded to not provide anything.  Sorry, loser.  Better luck next time when you have something .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You said, "There is, actually,"*
> 
> I only said that because it's true.
> 
> Did you have proof for your claim, "*There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old"*?
> 
> Or was, "*Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years.." *supposed to be your proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not true.  Ho hum.  You know nothing and are boring, so I won the argument and you are dismissed.
Click to expand...


*It's not true.  

How Do Geologists Know How Old a Rock Is?*

_Geologists generally know the age of a rock by determining the age of the group of rocks, or formation, that it is found in. The age of formations is marked on a geologic calendar known as the geologic time scale. Development of the geologic time scale and dating of formations and rocks relies upon two fundamentally different ways of telling time: relative and absolute._

_Relative dating places events or rocks in their chronologic sequence or order of occurrence. Absolute dating places events or rocks at a specific time. If a geologist claims to be younger than his or her co-worker, that is a relative age. If a geologist claims to be 45 years old, that is an absolute age._

*Relative Dating*
_*Superposition: *The most basic concept used in relative dating is the law of superposition. Simply stated, each bed in a sequence of sedimentary rocks (or layered volcanic rocks) is younger than the bed below it and older than the bed above it. This law follows two basic assumptions: (1) the beds were originally deposited near horizontal, and (2) the beds were not overturned after their deposition._

_*Faunal Succession: *Similar to the law of superposition is the law of faunal succession, which states that groups of fossil animals and plants occur throughout the geologic record in a distinct and identifiable order. Following this law, sedimentary rocks can be “dated” by their characteristic fossil content. Particularly useful are index fossils, geographically widespread fossils that evolved rapidly through time._

_*Crosscutting Relationships:* Relative ages of rocks and events may also be determined using the law of crosscutting relationships, which states that geologic features such as igneous intrusions or faults are younger than the units they cut across._

_*Inclusions: *Inclusions, which are fragments of older rock within a younger igneous rock or coarse-grained sedimentary rock, also facilitate relative dating. Inclusions are useful at contacts with igneous rock bodies where magma moving upward through the crust has dislodged and engulfed pieces of the older surrounding rock._

_Gaps in the geologic record, called unconformities, are common where deposition stopped and erosion removed the previously deposited material. Fortunately, distinctive features such as index fossils can aid in matching, or correlating, rocks and formations from several incomplete areas to create a more complete geologic record for relative dating. Relative dating techniques provide geologists abundant evidence of the incredible vastness of geologic time and ancient age of many rocks and formations. However, in order to place absolute dates on the relative time scale, other dating methods must be considered._

*Absolute Dating*
_The nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes is a process that behaves in a clock-like fashion and is thus a useful tool for determining the absolute age of rocks. Radioactive decay is the process by which a “parent” isotope changes into a “daughter” isotope. Rates of radioactive decay are constant and measured in terms of half-life, the time it takes half of a parent isotope to decay into a stable daughter isotope._

*so I won the argument*

Which one? LOL!


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is magic, you stupid, farking dumbass.  Big bang could not happen from singularity.  We can't even have singularity.
Click to expand...

Right, says the the expert on astrophysics, but some gaseous vertebrate in the sky who can violate the laws of physics isn't magic.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is magic, you stupid, farking dumbass.  Big bang could not happen from singularity.  We can't even have singularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, says the the expert on astrophysics, but some gaseous vertebrate in the sky who can violate the laws of physics isn't magic.
Click to expand...


Here why we can't have singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density -- one cannot divide by zero.  Q.E.D.  Proof your big bang hypothesis is magic.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is anti-science.  This is anti-anti-science.  That's _real_ science to the laypeople.
> 
> One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen.  One can do the math and see evolution does not happen.  One can do the math and see magic does not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is magic, you stupid, farking dumbass.  Big bang could not happen from singularity.  We can't even have singularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, says the the expert on astrophysics, but some gaseous vertebrate in the sky who can violate the laws of physics isn't magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here why we can't have singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density -- one cannot divide by zero.  Q.E.D.  Proof your big bang hypothesis is magic.
Click to expand...

But we can have a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics and even of logic?

BTW, many astrophysicists have a problem with the singularity.  They are working on a number of theories to resolve this issue.

It's not my big bang hypothesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for MAC who knows the truth
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it seems to only be the religious nutballs who claim to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly how life came to be? No. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you keep claiming you do know?
Click to expand...

I haven't.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> But we can have a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics and even of logic?



Not really because it's in the Bible.  Why are you such as loser?



bripat9643 said:


> BTW, many astrophysicists have a problem with the singularity. They are working on a number of theories to resolve this issue.



Sure, singularity violates the laws of physics.  One has to have a creator to divide by zero.

Wrong.  You can't just start with a theory.  One starts with a hypothesis and it may or may not start to get accepted by the majority of your peers.  With evolution, there is no _scientific _hypothesis and thus it's magic.



bripat9643 said:


> It's not my big bang hypothesis.



Then you're back to the infinite universe which was shown to be pseudoscience.  Creation and creation science explains it best.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Then you're back to the infinite universe which was shown to be pseudoscience.


You are confusing yourself again. An infinite universe remains entirely possible, in the sense that time is boundless. You use a lot of words that you don't really understand.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're back to the infinite universe which was shown to be pseudoscience.
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing yourself again. An infinite universe remains entirely possible, in the sense that time is boundless. You use a lot of words that you don't really understand.
Click to expand...


No, the universe has an edge and boundaries.  That is what stated.  Human belief of boundless and not having a center could be wrong and it is.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we can have a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics and even of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really because it's in the Bible.  Why are you such as loser?
Click to expand...


How does being in the Bible make your belief in a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics rational?



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, many astrophysicists have a problem with the singularity. They are working on a number of theories to resolve this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, singularity violates the laws of physics.  One has to have a creator to divide by zero.
Click to expand...


Do black holes violate the laws of physics?  They are also considered to be singularities.



james bond said:


> Wrong.  You can't just start with a theory.  One starts with a hypothesis and it may or may not start to get accepted by the majority of your peers.  With evolution, there is no _scientific _hypothesis and thus it's magic.



"there is no _scientific _hypothesis?"  ROFL!  It's called "natural selection," moron.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my big bang hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're back to the infinite universe which was shown to be pseudoscience.  Creation and creation science explains it best.
Click to expand...


Creation science isn't science.  What is your justification for claiming it explains it best?  Critics have pointed out thousands of contradictions in Genesis.


----------



## Questioner

Given that law theory, such as Common Law theory is more relevant to people's everyday lives, than an theory or abstraction like "evolution is", something which can't be seen with the naked eye, existing only in the confines of the mathematical approximations or abstractions which it was invented from, it seems that many people have disproportionate, emotional reason or investment in the theory, generally for some silly political or pop cultural reason or noting, rather than anything inherent in the theory itself to begin with, even in comparison to other theories within the confines of Bacon's scientific methodology, such as gravity or quantum physics.

In reality, the law of one's state affects their lives directly more than abstractions or speculations about mankind's ancestral past, yet it seems most Americans are ignorant of it, such as its history, development, philosophy, and the ways in which it actually functions and sustains people's rights and freedoms to begin with, as opposed to childish or inaccurate depictions on police TV shows and dramas.

I'd argue there would be much more pragmatic sense in teaching people the their of their Common Law system, than comparatively childish whims, abstractions, and speculations like "evolution", which are generally based more on silly pop cultural, film, or television notions than anything in the real world anyway outside of one's wild little imagination and quasi-religious obsessions with it to such a disproportionate degree (even when it seems it would better favor their non-existance, than their existance, pretenses to "equality", or having anything resembling an "equal" chance of living or dying) to begin with, however ironically - much as to the average "internet atheist", science would, in practice be the better off without their anti-intellectualism, and feral sense of beliefs, which were everyone worthless and savager enough to subscribe themselves to, there would be no "science", nor any culture to begin with, it having far more reasons for their extinction than their subsistence, and "caring" not for them or their pious appeals to it, like some omnipotent being, entity, or abstraction.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> How does being in the Bible make your belief in a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics rational?



Because science backs up the Bible.  Laws of physics were created during creation week.



bripat9643 said:


> Do black holes violate the laws of physics? They are also considered to be singularities.



Instead, we see black holes grow.  No one has demonstrated that there is a singularity even in a black hole.  It's just a guess.



bripat9643 said:


> "there is no _scientific _hypothesis?" ROFL! It's called "natural selection," moron.



Creation science, Alfred Russel Wallace, found natural selection first.  It's the only thing that is observable and Darwin was right about.



bripat9643 said:


> Creation science isn't science. What is your justification for claiming it explains it best? Critics have pointed out thousands of contradictions in Genesis.



Creation science is real science.  It is what is observable.  Science backs up creation science.  For example, we cannot create life outside the cell.  Only life begats life.  Thus, life had to be _created_ first in order for it to happen.  You really are a moron if you can't figure these things out through observation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does being in the Bible make your belief in a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics rational?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because science backs up the Bible.  Laws of physics were created during creation week.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do black holes violate the laws of physics? They are also considered to be singularities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead, we see black holes grow.  No one has demonstrated that there is a singularity even in a black hole.  It's just a guess.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "there is no _scientific _hypothesis?" ROFL! It's called "natural selection," moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science, Alfred Russel Wallace, found natural selection first.  It's the only thing that is observable and Darwin was right about.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't science. What is your justification for claiming it explains it best? Critics have pointed out thousands of contradictions in Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science.  It is what is observable.  Science backs up creation science.  For example, we cannot create life outside the cell.  Only life begats life.  Thus, life had to be _created_ first in order for it to happen.  You really are a moron if you can't figure these things out through observation.
Click to expand...


*Because science backs up the Bible.*

Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.
What passage in the Bible is backed up by that fact?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.



Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science.  You got rocks in your head.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science.  You got rocks in your head.
Click to expand...


*Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science.  *

Where in the Bible can we find the correct assumptions and good science to find the actual age?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does being in the Bible make your belief in a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics rational?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because science backs up the Bible.  Laws of physics were created during creation week.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do black holes violate the laws of physics? They are also considered to be singularities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead, we see black holes grow.  No one has demonstrated that there is a singularity even in a black hole.  It's just a guess.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "there is no _scientific _hypothesis?" ROFL! It's called "natural selection," moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation science, Alfred Russel Wallace, found natural selection first.  It's the only thing that is observable and Darwin was right about.
Click to expand...


Darwin published first, so he gets the credit.  How does the this guy's existence prove any of your faulty theories?

Lots of theories about nature cannot be demonstrated.  That's why they are called "theories."  However, that doesn't give you license to give the credit to your gaseous vertebrate.  You can't demonstrate that your fantasy creature had anything to do with it.

You still haven't demonstrated that the laws of physics back the Bible.



james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science isn't science. What is your justification for claiming it explains it best? Critics have pointed out thousands of contradictions in Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is real science.  It is what is observable.  Science backs up creation science.  For example, we cannot create life outside the cell.  Only life begats life.  Thus, life had to be _created_ first in order for it to happen.  You really are a moron if you can't figure these things out through observation.
Click to expand...

What "science" backs up that ludicrous claim?  The fact that we can't do it doesn't mean that it can't be done.  The premise is false, therefore the conclusion isn't justified.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science.  You got rocks in your head.
Click to expand...

Prove it.


----------



## Questioner

The fraud is in those who naively, childishly, and uninformedly repeat it, along with childish references and reverences to "science" in general, informed more by unintellectual mass media, a paltry K-12 education or unremarkable degree or job in some field of work erroneously attributed to the subject, along with the fallacious or silly notion that all scientists or "science jobs" are equal or comparable in any way, or silly TV shows, archaic political beliefs, myths, fables, and axioms, like the silly myth of Darwin and his false credit for the theory anyway in ignorance his contemporaries or its existence as folk knowledge in multiple cultures, as far back as Greek's pre-Socratic philosophers.

I'd venture that few who unthinkingly repeat it would even be bothered to know who Francis Bacon is, as well as his method and the axioms and parameters it was constructed from, many of them ever so frequently, either through stupidity, dishonesty, or both conflating all sorts of things with science, such as silly political beliefs, philosophies, faiths, or axioms, other types of theorization, such as "conspiracy theories", and so on and so forth.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where in the Bible can we find the correct assumptions and good science to find the actual age?



God said that he will keep some things to himself such as the age of the Earth and universe.  Thus, we will not know the exact age using science.  We will have to make some assumptions, too.  One method assumes that the six days of creation presented in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour periods and that there are no gaps in the chronology of Genesis.  The years listed in the genealogies of Genesis are then added to get an approximate time from creation to certain Old Testament figures.  This gives us around 6,000 years for the age of the Earth.

We also had radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds by RATE since C14 still remained.  That showed a young Earth around 48 to 50,000 years old.

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed

How old do you believe the Earth to be and why?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science.  You got rocks in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


They used radiometric dating of a meteor to find the age of the Earth.  Obviously, the meteor was not from Earth.

Lying evos would use anything to fit what Darwin needed to explain evolution of long time.  Would you accept a 3 billion year old Earth that Arthur Holmes calculated using radiometric dating?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Bible can we find the correct assumptions and good science to find the actual age?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God said that he will keep some things to himself such as the age of the Earth and universe.  Thus, we will not know the exact age using science.  We will have to make some assumptions, too.  One method assumes that the six days of creation presented in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour periods and that there are no gaps in the chronology of Genesis.  The years listed in the genealogies of Genesis are then added to get an approximate time from creation to certain Old Testament figures.  This gives us around 6,000 years for the age of the Earth.
> 
> We also had radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds by RATE since C14 still remained.  That showed a young Earth around 48 to 50,000 years old.
> 
> Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed
> 
> How old do you believe the Earth to be and why?
Click to expand...


*God said that he will keep some things to himself such as the age of the Earth and universe.*

Where did he say that? 
Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?



I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.

What does this tell you?







"The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."

Creation Evidence Museum of Texas

What kind of museums do you go to?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
Click to expand...






The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology


----------



## rightwinger

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 295714
> 
> The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology
Click to expand...

Science!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
Click to expand...

Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum


----------



## Votto

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science.  You got rocks in your head.
Click to expand...


You need to be careful here.  Although radiometric dating can be faulty due to possible confounding factors, there are other ways to measure the age of the universe that are each independent of each other, and all point to a universe that is billions of years old.

In addition, we have Biblical hints as well such as this verse in Genesis.

*Genesis 2:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,*

So if the days in Genesis are literal days, what is Genesis saying about the generations?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
Click to expand...


The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact

_Although the hammer has been kept under close guard by Baugh and thus not readily available for detailed analysis by conventional scientists, in 1985 NCSE researcher John Cole briefly reviewed Baugh's hammer claims. Although Cole did not challenge Baugh's presumption at the time that the nearby rocks were Ordovician, Cole pointed out that minerals dissolved from ancient strata could harden around a recent object, stating: 

 The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985). Cole also noted that the hammer is of "recent American historic style," and concluded that it was probably a 19th century miner's hammer. Others have suggested that it might be a metal working hammer, and that the protrusion on one end of the head might have once contained a leather or wood cap that has since weathered away (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). Perhaps further research will clarify its actual use and precise age._​


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 295714
> 
> The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology
Click to expand...







These kind of things are all over the place including petrified trees going through rock layers.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
Click to expand...


Wrong museum, moron.  You need to stop getting drunk all the time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 295714
> 
> The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These kind of things are all over the place including petrified trees going through rock layers.
Click to expand...


So that tree is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old?
Proof that some rocks aren't billions of years old?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 295714
> 
> The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These kind of things are all over the place including petrified trees going through rock layers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that tree is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old?
> Proof that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
Click to expand...


You just need to get a brain so you can figure these things out, moron.  Again, we are done here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 295714
> 
> The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These kind of things are all over the place including petrified trees going through rock layers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that tree is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old?
> Proof that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just need to get a brain so you can figure these things out, moron.  Again, we are done here.
Click to expand...


Trees buried by Mt Pinatubo are also proof the Earth isn't billions of years old?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong museum, moron.  You need to stop getting drunk all the time.
Click to expand...


One silly creationist carnival is the same as any other.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that mean that some rocks aren't billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you're what I call an internet atheist.
> 
> What does this tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimble County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal."
> 
> Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
> 
> What kind of museums do you go to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 295714
> 
> The London Artifact (Texas) - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These kind of things are all over the place including petrified trees going through rock layers.
Click to expand...


Why would you suppose that is evidence of a 6,000 year old planet?


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." C.S. Lewis



We are not physical bodies with a spirit, we are spiritual beings inside physical bodies. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin  (From memory.  If you wish, look it up and make any corrections.)


----------



## james bond

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." C.S. Lewis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not physical bodies with a spirit, we are spiritual beings inside physical bodies. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin  (From memory.  If you wish, look it up and make any corrections.)
Click to expand...


I have never heard of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin until now, but it sounds right.  I told atheist OldBiologist who believes in evolution and there is no supernatural that an example of the supernatural is the life spirit itself.  We can see that every day of out lives.  Humans can conceive life through sexual reproduction, but cannot create life outside the cell.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> Pierre Teilhard de Chardin


The charlatan? Heh heh....okay.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." C.S. Lewis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not physical bodies with a spirit, we are spiritual beings inside physical bodies. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin  (From memory.  If you wish, look it up and make any corrections.)
Click to expand...

It’s funny when religious extremists blather on with abstract ideas such as “spirits” and supernaturalism while not submitting any case to support them.


----------



## Questioner

Most of what people believe and postulate about evolution is a fraud, yes, the merits of it, or the other theories of evolution which have existed independently and proceeded Darwin's own take on the subject, or of the other theories or mathematical approximations under the scope of Francis Bacon's scientific methodologies, being a different subject entirely....

Evolution, more often than not, sadly, is just what ugly people use as a surrogate for an imaginary friend or heathen deity, much as is the case in most superstitious and supercilious views and homages to "science", popular science to be more specific... were Francis Bacon still here, he may very well be rolling in his grave, cliché as that one often is... or perhaps he would've just chalked it up to human nature and stupidity in general, of which we are all potentially prone to.


----------



## Hollie

Questioner said:


> Most of what people believe and postulate about evolution is a fraud, yes, the merits of it, or the other theories of evolution which have existed independently and proceeded Darwin's own take on the subject, or of the other theories or mathematical approximations under the scope of Francis Bacon's scientific methodologies, being a different subject entirely....
> 
> Evolution, more often than not, sadly, is just what ugly people use as a surrogate for an imaginary friend or heathen deity, much as is the case in most superstitious and supercilious views and homages to "science", popular science to be more specific... were Francis Bacon still here, he may very well be rolling in his grave, cliché as that one often is... or perhaps he would've just chalked it up to human nature and stupidity in general, of which we are all potentially prone to.



Ah. Another Harun Yahya groupie.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." C.S. Lewis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not physical bodies with a spirit, we are spiritual beings inside physical bodies. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin  (From memory.  If you wish, look it up and make any corrections.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s funny when religious extremists blather on with abstract ideas such as “spirits” and supernaturalism while not submitting any case to support them.
Click to expand...


Nothing extreme.  It's _observable_.  I think OldBiologist kicked the bucket after I told him as he still didn't believe it like you.  He probably couldn't take it that he was wrong all his life while you're still in denial.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Ah. Another Harun Yahya groupie.



What's a Harun Yahya?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The charlatan? Heh heh....okay.



Who is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?  Why is he a charlatan?

You think the truth are lies and lies are truth, so it's probably worthwhile hearing why Pierre Chardin is a charlatan?  Did he masquerade as Pierre Cardin?


----------



## jasonlee3071

Ringel05 said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
Click to expand...

Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially  if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.


----------



## Ringel05

jasonlee3071 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially  if it's religious.
> A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.
Click to expand...

Well it's obvious you're an unbeliever as you think logic and reason is also out of the equation, looks like an attempt at self justification.  Logic and reason are often exercises in rationalization which can make them subjective as opposed to objective in nature depending on their application, subjective vs objective logic.  There are those who would argue that based on a narrow definition/application, that's their prerogative.  Reason on the other hand, if we take Hume's word, "reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions" a totally subjective definition.


----------



## Questioner

jasonlee3071 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially  if it's religious.
> A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.
Click to expand...

The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).

Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof thereof be damned.

Another instance of such is when a simpleton or simplistic person calls one of much higher intelligence, whether standard, emotional, creative or otherwise a "kook" or some other childish dismissal or term simply because the ideas, concepts, metaphors, and so forth are merely too much for one of an IQ of 95-105 to attempt comprehension thereof (and likely a subpar EQ to boot, per Daniel Goleman), or require the training and emotional restraint of that reactive, impulsive "system 1" thinking which I aptly described and surmised above.

(Granted, there are kooks, like Ted Kaczynski, but in this hypothetical scenario, the person in question is not a "kook", but rather a genius, merely having their intellect derided by a literal, or at least relative simpleton who simply isn't at the level rightfully capable of comprehending it, or even attempting a bit of comprehension to begin with, because it would distract their time away from more important tasks, such as watching television or commenting ignorantly or maladjustedly on their favorite, childish little social media website of chose - pick your favorite?



I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Questioner said:


> jasonlee3071 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially  if it's religious.
> A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).
> 
> Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.
Click to expand...

Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap. Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning, practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.


----------



## Questioner

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Questioner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonlee3071 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially  if it's religious.
> A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).
> 
> Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap.
Click to expand...

I'm aware it has too many "big words for you".

Sometime, I will learn to write for an IQ 100 audience, which is what most mass media is for to begin with... sigh... but only if you insist. (Though to be honest, I'm not really sure how much of this is a case of "having a 100 IQ", or simply not using any more of it to begin with).




> Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning,


That's factually incorrect.

Bacon's scientific method is "inductive" (based on nature, or empericism), not "deductive" (based on logic, or rationalism). You're conflating two things which aren't the same at all.



> practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.


Yes, it and many other systems, such as legal systems have their own methodologies and arbitrations with their own focus and limits in scope, as far as the mathematical construction of those methodologies and what they limit their scope to, as well as what their scope excludes, or does not include, and as far as arguments in regards to whether or not the methologies themselves are a problem, in potential need of change or revision entirely, that's a different argument.

Regardless, you are merely repeating this on the basis of faith in Francis Bacon's methodology, as well as a misunderstanding of what that methodology is to begin with, not on having designed it yourself, or contributed to the design thereof, akin to Bacon himself, for example.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Questioner said:


> I'm aware it has too many "big words for you".



Cool crybabying!

You're not really impressing anyone,moron. You are an embarrassing evolution denier.


----------



## Ringel05

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Questioner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonlee3071 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially  if it's religious.
> A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).
> 
> Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap. Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning, practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately science and the scientific method aren't always equal parts of the whole.  We make postulations then set out to prove or disprove based on our collective yet still limited knowledge/experiences/observations.  Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.  In most cases all we prove is that based on our knowledge that this is or isn't or in other words "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."  Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.  The lack of evidence simply means there's a lack of evidence and nothing more which is why some questions may never be answered scientifically.


----------



## Questioner

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Questioner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware it has too many "big words for you".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool crybabying!
> 
> You're not really impressing anyone,moron.
Click to expand...

I'm probably in the top 1% percentile in terms of reading and linguistic ability - either improve your reading and literary comprehension, or quit crying, don't make me dumb stuff down, seriously.



> You are an embarrassing evolution denier.


I'll deny evolution as much as I want to, and no - nothing will happen, no Flying Spaghetti Monster will smite me, no pirates will gang-rape me, or have me walk a proverbial plank.

I'll still get to make love to your wife or girlfriend, and do some actual "evolving" in practice, while you and the other hideous evolution fetishists spend your free time masturbating to anime and speculating on online forms whether or not your great great great grandad was conceived by rape or not, thereby spending your time "devolving", rather than actually evolving, as many a dashing young man has done since the caveman days, without even being naïve, bored, or desperate enough to care about the ugliness of evolution to begin with, at least as far as "mating success" goes. He he he.

Only an evolutionary ineffectual would have such a childish, simplistic view of evolution, as if it's a a god, or faithful little sky daddy for the superstitious for them to confide in every so faithfully, which can actually do anything to one who denies it.

My little pinky finger is obviously more powerful, potent, and significant than your archaic, and highly overrated 19th century theory is, which if not plagiarized or stolen out right from the various other evolutionary theories, having existed since the ancient Greeks and Hindus, or other contemporaries of Mr. Darwin himself, was at least entirely unoriginal, to the point that it had been a component of various folk wisdoms since the ancients, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and information, such as legal or Common Law theory.

So go ahead, and continue to give your piety and penace to evolution, or "ugly-lution" as I prefer to call it lately, and please tell me when it actually cares, and actually grants you a beautiful or attractive mate for devotion and refusal to deny it, even at your own evolutionary expense, ironically - giving that talking about it in public places tends to be a aesthetic repellant, rather than aesthetic aid in the art of love and sex. Mhmm


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringel05 said:


> Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.


That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that. 



Ringel05 said:


> "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."


That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence. 


Ringel05 said:


> Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.


Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." C.S. Lewis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not physical bodies with a spirit, we are spiritual beings inside physical bodies. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin  (From memory.  If you wish, look it up and make any corrections.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s funny when religious extremists blather on with abstract ideas such as “spirits” and supernaturalism while not submitting any case to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing extreme.  It's _observable_.  I think OldBiologist kicked the bucket after I told him as he still didn't believe it like you.  He probably couldn't take it that he was wrong all his life while you're still in denial.
Click to expand...


Denial of what? 

I accept knowledge, reason and supported hypothesis confirmed by peer review as a means to supplant the fear and superstition of religious extremism. 

The slippery slope of religious dogma is once anyone begins to subdivide the bibles into the "yeah, that's absolutely true" parts from the "well, that's kinda' true", parts, it becomes a convoluted mess of contradictory suppositions. 

Religious dogma has a singular goal to bolster your partisan beliefs -- not your knowledge, because knowledge and superstition are different. The seeking of knowledge would be to study and evaluate, with objectivity, countering proposals. Knowledge is not asked for in the realm of the religious extremist, unquestioning faith is. There is an underlying misology (hatred of knowledge) in the Bibles. knowledge of good and evil is the original sin, after all. Before they sinned, A & E (not the Cable Netwok), were ignorant. Knowledge to the gods is sin-- because knowledge would preclude faith. According to the dogma, the gods prefer unquestioning belief, but will allow you to choose knowledge. The price of which is eternal hell of course.


----------



## Ringel05

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence.
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.
Click to expand...

In the first you neglected to take into account "based on our limited knowledge" and in the second you affirm it...........


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringel05 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence.
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the first you neglected to take into account "based on our limited knowledge" and in the second you affirm it...........
Click to expand...



Yes, we will always be biased and constrained by what we already know. Science does its best to nullify this bias. If you can think of a better method for gaining empirical knowledge, I am all ears.


----------



## Hollie

Questioner said:


> I'm probably in the top 1% percentile in terms of reading and linguistic ability - either improve your reading and literary comprehension, or quit crying, don't make me dumb stuff down, seriously.



Not sure who told you that. Your ability to string words into coherent sentences is lacking and you display a marked inability to convey a reasoned argument supported by fact. 

Pompous blathering doesn’t support your top 1% claim.


----------



## Questioner

Ringel05 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questioner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonlee3071 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially  if it's religious.
> A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).
> 
> Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap. Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning, practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately science and the scientific method aren't always equal parts of the whole.  We make postulations then set out to prove or disprove based on our collective yet still limited knowledge/experiences/observations.  Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.  In most cases all we prove is that based on our knowledge that this is or isn't or in other words "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."  Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.  The lack of evidence simply means there's a lack of evidence and nothing more which is why some questions may never be answered scientifically.
Click to expand...

The irony is that there's no "evolutionary" reason to "believe in evolution" to begin with, the notion of believing in or denying evolution is childish, archaic and entirely superstitious to begin with.

If it was more in our evolutionary interest to "deny it", than to believe in it or acknowledge it, then there's no reason to believe in it, the notion that believing in it as some silly "end in and of itself", like it's the Nicene Creed or something is absurd, and would in itself be an evolutionary maladaption, believing in something even to the point that it serves no meaningful or useful purpose or utility, or ends up being counter productive rather than productive.

Given that survival, procreation, mating, and simplistic behaviors like that have existed since the days of ancient humans, rarely if ever having any need for knowing what "evolution" is to begin with, and that many of the "internet atheists" who seem to fetishize evolution or simplistic notions or ideas of "science" to begin with, typically pale, with an IQ of maybe 105, often single, overweight, with more of an interest in "waifus" than finding a wife or girlfriend, seem to do quite a bit more "devolution" than any actual "evolution in practice"...

This could indicate that belief in or appealing to evolution itself is ironically an evolutionary maladaptation or recessive trait, while focusing on subjects of higher or superior aesthetic value, much as mathematics (as opposed to "math"), arts, music or other creative endeavours may be an evolutionary superior trait or area of focus in life).

(I believe there is a book on evolution called "Survival of the Beautiful" which documents this). As far as "science" itself as an enterprise or endeavor to begin with, the primary purpose of "science" as an end in and of itself is just an aesthetic end to begin with, akin to pure mathematics; scientists themselves say ultimately, that "science is just plain fun", and anything more pragmatic than that is simply a consequence or byproduct to begin with 

Such as how, even in modern day hunter-gatherer tribes, which have met their basic material and survival needs for 80,000 years or more with no need for more modern technologies or endeavours (even then though, these cultures still have "creative" or "innovative" endeavors, such as arts or inventiveness, which I belive are ultimately just a fundamental part of our human nature, even if they would seem "primitive" by our standards today, such as it has been observed that animals display creative traits and activities such as artistic or musical, as "ends in and of themselves"


----------



## Questioner

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence.
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the first you neglected to take into account "based on our limited knowledge" and in the second you affirm it...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we will always be biased and constrained by what we already know. Science does its best to nullify this bias.
Click to expand...

So you have faith in, yes.



> If you can think of a better method for gaining empirical knowledge, I am all ears.


Circular reasoning; if the arguments are based on induction or empiricism to begin with, as opposed to something else or different, such as "deduction" or rationalism, that in and of itself is a valid argument.


----------



## Ringel05

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence.
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the first you neglected to take into account "based on our limited knowledge" and in the second you affirm it...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we will always be biased and constrained by what we already know. Science does its best to nullify this bias. If you can think of a better method for gaining empirical knowledge, I am all ears.
Click to expand...

I'm a scientific method adherent myself even with all it's human limitations and fallibilities.  You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel, I was responding to that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringel05 said:


> You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel


Well, that's a "you" problem. 

I take is as the best and, really,  only method for discovering empirical knowledge. 

Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books 

That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.


----------



## Ringel05

Questioner said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questioner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonlee3071 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially  if it's religious.
> A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).
> 
> Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap. Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning, practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately science and the scientific method aren't always equal parts of the whole.  We make postulations then set out to prove or disprove based on our collective yet still limited knowledge/experiences/observations.  Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.  In most cases all we prove is that based on our knowledge that this is or isn't or in other words "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."  Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.  The lack of evidence simply means there's a lack of evidence and nothing more which is why some questions may never be answered scientifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The irony is that there's no "evolutionary" reason to "believe in evolution" to begin with, the notion of believing in or denying evolution is childish, archaic and entirely superstitious to begin with.
> 
> If it was more in our evolutionary interest to "deny it", than to believe in it or acknowledge it, then there's no reason to believe in it, the notion that believing in it as some silly "end in and of itself", like it's the Nicene Creed or something is absurd, and would in itself be an evolutionary maladaption, believing in something even to the point that it serves no meaningful or useful purpose or utility, or ends up being counter productive rather than productive.
> 
> Given that survival, procreation, mating, and simplistic behaviors like that have existed since the days of ancient humans, rarely if ever having any need for knowing what "evolution" is to begin with, and that many of the "internet atheists" who seem to fetishize evolution or simplistic notions or ideas of "science" to begin with, typically pale, with an IQ of maybe 105, often single, overweight, with more of an interest in "waifus" than finding a wife or girlfriend, seem to do quite a bit more "devolution" than any actual "evolution in practice"...
> 
> This could indicate that belief in or appealing to evolution itself is ironically an evolutionary maladaptation or recessive trait, while focusing on subjects of higher or superior aesthetic value, much as mathematics (as opposed to "math"), arts, music or other creative endeavours may be an evolutionary superior trait or area of focus in life).
> 
> (I believe there is a book on evolution called "Survival of the Beautiful" which documents this). As far as "science" itself as an enterprise or endeavor to begin with, the primary purpose of "science" as an end in and of itself is just an aesthetic end to begin with, akin to pure mathematics; scientists themselves say ultimately, that "science is just plain fun", and anything more pragmatic than that is simply a consequence or byproduct to begin with
> 
> Such as how, even in modern day hunter-gatherer tribes, which have met their basic material and survival needs for 80,000 years or more with no need for more modern technologies or endeavours (even then though, these cultures still have "creative" or "innovative" endeavors, such as arts or inventiveness, which I belive are ultimately just a fundamental part of our human nature, even if they would seem "primitive" by our standards today, such as it has been observed that animals display creative traits and activities such as artistic or musical, as "ends in and of themselves"
Click to expand...

Basically, to put it in layman's terms it would appear that the only "god" you believe in is yourself..........


----------



## Ringel05

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, that's a "you" problem.*
> 
> I take is as the best and, really,  only method for discovering empirical knowledge.
> 
> Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books
> 
> That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.
Click to expand...

That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics.  I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.


----------



## Ringel05

Ringel05 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, that's a "you" problem.*
> 
> I take is as the best and, really,  only method for discovering empirical knowledge.
> 
> Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books
> 
> That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
> I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics.  I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.
Click to expand...

As for my use of the word "gospel" that was more of a rhetorical allegory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringel05 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, that's a "you" problem.*
> 
> I take is as the best and, really,  only method for discovering empirical knowledge.
> 
> Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books
> 
> That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
> I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics.  I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

But open-minded doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) mean "willing to suspend incredulity". Science changes as new information arises. That is the very definition of open minded. And the exact opposite of religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha.


----------



## Ringel05

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, that's a "you" problem.*
> 
> I take is as the best and, really,  only method for discovering empirical knowledge.
> 
> Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books
> 
> That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
> I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics.  I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> But open-minded doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) mean "willing to suspend incredulity". Science changes as new information arises. That is the very definition of open minded. And the exact opposite of religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha.
Click to expand...

That's what's known as a closed mind.........


----------



## alang1216

Questioner said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questioner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware it has too many "big words for you".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool crybabying!
> 
> You're not really impressing anyone,moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm probably in the top 1% percentile in terms of reading and linguistic ability - either improve your reading and literary comprehension, or quit crying, don't make me dumb stuff down, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an embarrassing evolution denier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll deny evolution as much as I want to, and no - nothing will happen, no Flying Spaghetti Monster will smite me, no pirates will gang-rape me, or have me walk a proverbial plank.
> 
> I'll still get to make love to your wife or girlfriend, and do some actual "evolving" in practice, while you and the other hideous evolution fetishists spend your free time masturbating to anime and speculating on online forms whether or not your great great great grandad was conceived by rape or not, thereby spending your time "devolving", rather than actually evolving, as many a dashing young man has done since the caveman days, without even being naïve, bored, or desperate enough to care about the ugliness of evolution to begin with, at least as far as "mating success" goes. He he he.
> 
> Only an evolutionary ineffectual would have such a childish, simplistic view of evolution, as if it's a a god, or faithful little sky daddy for the superstitious for them to confide in every so faithfully, which can actually do anything to one who denies it.
> 
> My little pinky finger is obviously more powerful, potent, and significant than your archaic, and highly overrated 19th century theory is, which if not plagiarized or stolen out right from the various other evolutionary theories, having existed since the ancient Greeks and Hindus, or other contemporaries of Mr. Darwin himself, was at least entirely unoriginal, to the point that it had been a component of various folk wisdoms since the ancients, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and information, such as legal or Common Law theory.
> 
> So go ahead, and continue to give your piety and penace to evolution, or "ugly-lution" as I prefer to call it lately, and please tell me when it actually cares, and actually grants you a beautiful or attractive mate for devotion and refusal to deny it, even at your own evolutionary expense, ironically - giving that talking about it in public places tends to be a aesthetic repellant, rather than aesthetic aid in the art of love and sex. Mhmm
Click to expand...

You seem to be conflating the two parts of the theory of evolution into one.  

The first part is decent from a common ancestor.  The FACT that ALL life on earth is related and derived from previous life.  There is overwhelming evidence for this FACT from every related field of science, including genetics, anatomy, and geology.  To deny this is to deny what you yourself can see and study and has been generally accepted by science since ancient times.  How that life first came to exist is not part of the theory of evolution.  

The second part of the theory of evolution is the mechanism for HOW life evolved.  The mechanism Darwin proposed, natural selection, was his great contribution.  Is it the only mechanism?  Probably not, it is still being studied and refined.

BTW, as a bit of advice, I know plenty of really smart people and they never brag about their smarts, they demonstrate them.


----------



## Questioner

alang1216 said:


> So go ahead, and continue to give your piety and penace to evolution, or "ugly-lution" as I prefer to call it lately, and please tell me when it actually cares, and actually grants you a beautiful or attractive mate for devotion and refusal to deny it, even at your own evolutionary expense, ironically - giving that talking about it in public places tends to be a aesthetic repellant, rather than aesthetic aid in the art of love and sex. Mhmm


You seem to be conflating the two parts of the theory of evolution into one. 

The first part is decent from a common ancestor.  The FACT that ALL life on earth is related and derived from previous life.  There is overwhelming evidence for this FACT from every related field of science, including genetics, anatomy, and geology.  To deny this is to deny what you yourself can see and study and has been generally accepted by science since ancient times.  How that life first came to exist is not part of the theory of evolution.
[/quote]
Correct, it's been a component of theories, folk wisdom, and other bodies of knowledge and authorship since the ancient times, as far back as pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and wisdom, such as Oliver Wendall Holmes' treatise on the Common Law.

Showing that most of the popular myths and fables about evolution, Darwin, and so forth are dishonest, archaic, and historically ignorant, a mere product of propaganda and outdated 19th century ideas and folk notions, not science, in the modern sense of Francis Bacon and his inductive method, or in the context of any historical method or institution of knowledge, wisdom, thought, and the like.



> The second part of the theory of evolution is the mechanism for HOW life evolved.  The mechanism Darwin proposed, natural selection, was his great contribution.  Is it the only mecha nism?  Probably not, it is still being studied and refined.
> 
> BTW, as a bit of advice, I know plenty of really smart people and they never brag about their smarts, they demonstrate them.


Fair enough, that's apples to oranges has has no bearing on what's being discussed here.


----------



## Questioner

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, that's a "you" problem.*
> 
> I take is as the best and, really,  only method for discovering empirical knowledge.
> 
> Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books
> 
> That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the way you came accross so that's what I responded to.
> I take empirical knowledge with a grain of salt in some areas because of our limitations which is why I try to keep an open mind concerning most aspects of science and metaphysics.  I don't close my mind to evolution nor do I close my mind to the possible existence of God, closing my mind to either would be the epitome of human arrogance and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> But open-minded doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) mean "willing to suspend incredulity". Science changes as new information arises. That is the very definition of open minded. And the exact opposite of religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha.
Click to expand...

That would be, incorrect of course, and falsely dichtomic.

The idea that "religion" or religious systems haven't changed or developed over time is rather silly and historically false.

Much as, by the same token, the axiom or faith-based principle upon which methods such as Francis Bacon's scientific method, or inductive method being a desirable method to use, or the use of it in preference to other methods, never changes, as far as the institution of science and the axiom or axioms which its methodology is founded upon to begin with.

Many of the false and erroneous historical myths and fables, and their silly false dichotomies such as "science and religion", are merely propaganda, dogma, or misinformation designed to legitimize Bacon's method and its arbitrary parameters and an institution itself, despite being easily debunked and show to be erroneous and fictitious by a history of the development of Bacon's scientific or inductive method, as well as the development or potential development of other methods founded on different axioms altogether.

But this, of course would be lost on the under-literate and undereducated on the subjects, whose education on science to begin with usually stunts at a paltry 6th grade or K-12 level, which most scientific propaganda and media is marketed to. many of whom would even conflate archaic grading and learning methodologies, such as the K-12 system itself, with actual learning or depth of comprehension into science, or arguably any other subject of merit or validity.

Many of them falsely conflating lots of things altogether, such as conflating "deduction, or rationalism", with "induction, or empiricism" (the method which Bacon's system is founded upon), or conflating archaic, often 19th century philosophies, such as utilitarianism as per Bentham and Mill with "science", or conflating other bodies of theory, formal or informal with scientific theories, and what they are within the context of scientific jargon. (e.x. Some idiots I've encountered, for example, don't even know the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and a scientific theory, or don't know what a theory or body of abstraction is in the broadest sense to begin with, such as the Common Law theory, showing a lack of understanding of the difference between a theory in the broadest sense, or what the jargon or terminology of "theory" is as used specifically within the confines of Bacon's system, as opposed to outside of it, such as in Law or philosophy again, for example).

So no, the theory of evolution has no inherent worth in the real world, outside of the parameters of Bacon's methodology itself than any other body of theory, knowledge, wisdom and so forth, with some type of popular fetishization of Bacon's method, or that theory in specific being, ironically, against the themes and principles found in evolutionary theories to begin with.

Primarily just being a fad or trend of media indoctrination and propaganda, or those of an arrested K-12 education, or who are still stuck in 19th century archaism and social irrelevance, superciliously marketing Bacon's method or other trendy, popular notions of "science" to a demographic of that level, who have some disproportionate and arguably mythical notion or idea of it and what it means to begin with, not believing it because it's "true" in any inherent or axomatic sense, but merely because it's convenient, and it helps a very limited mind make sense of things in an overly simplistic and childish way, mainly simply because they were taught it, or perhaps are biased toward some industry coincidentally of their personal preference, and like those of the Midieval era who simply were too mentally limited to imagine life, or the real world without the Church, simply can't imagine life or the real world without popular 19th century science or scientific propaganda, only even able to rationalize or justify the axioms upon which Bacon's method is founded to begin with, by resorting to childish and intellectually inept false diethoxies, such as the entire "science / religion" dichotomy and myth to begin with, or other popular and ignorant ones such as "young earth creation and evolution", which I'm surprised are a subject of discussion among those who've read so much as a book, honestly, or even know how to spot and address the simplest "argument from authority and indoctrinative "fallacy" when they spot one... ah... how archaic and quaint indeed


----------



## alang1216

Questioner said:


> Correct, it's [_decent from a common ancestor_] been a component of theories, folk wisdom, and other bodies of knowledge and authorship since the ancient times, as far back as pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and wisdom, such as Oliver Wendall Holmes' treatise on the Common Law.
> 
> Showing that most of the popular myths and fables about evolution, Darwin, and so forth are dishonest, archaic, and historically ignorant, a mere product of propaganda and outdated 19th century ideas and folk notions, not science, in the modern sense of Francis Bacon and his inductive method, or in the context of any historical method or institution of knowledge, wisdom, thought, and the like.


Just because the common traits of plants and animals are obvious to all doesn't mean they are not there.  There is nothing in _decent from a common ancestor _or _natural selection_ that violates the Baconian method.


----------



## Questioner

alang1216 said:


> Questioner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, it's [_decent from a common ancestor_] been a component of theories, folk wisdom, and other bodies of knowledge and authorship since the ancient times, as far back as pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and wisdom, such as Oliver Wendall Holmes' treatise on the Common Law.
> 
> Showing that most of the popular myths and fables about evolution, Darwin, and so forth are dishonest, archaic, and historically ignorant, a mere product of propaganda and outdated 19th century ideas and folk notions, not science, in the modern sense of Francis Bacon and his inductive method, or in the context of any historical method or institution of knowledge, wisdom, thought, and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the common traits of plants and animals are obvious to all doesn't mean they are not there.  There is nothing in _decent from a common ancestor _or _natural selection_ that violates the Baconian method.
Click to expand...

The argument was about the Baconian method (induction) itself, not what, within the context and parameters of the method in question "violates" it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringel05 said:


> That's what's known as a closed mind........


No idea what you meant, there.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> There is nothing in _decent from a common ancestor _or _natural selection_ that violates the Baconian method.



Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species.  Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin.  You are _caught_ trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one.  One that was discovered by a creation scientist first.  Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time.  If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures?  Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see.  In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils.  All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No idea what you meant, there.



I knew what he meant immediately.  That's because you're a closed minded and hypocritical fool who believes in magic.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in _decent from a common ancestor _or _natural selection_ that violates the Baconian method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species.  Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin.  You are _caught_ trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one.  One that was discovered by a creation scientist first.  Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time.  If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures?  Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see.  In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils.  All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.
Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons.  I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in _decent from a common ancestor _or _natural selection_ that violates the Baconian method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species.  Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin.  You are _caught_ trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one.  One that was discovered by a creation scientist first.  Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time.  If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures?  Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see.  In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils.  All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons.  I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.
Click to expand...


There is nothing scientific in one of your statements except a false claim.  I have pointed out neatly your attempt to put together a false statement with a true one in your argument.  It is not I who is wrong, but you and it bears repeating that you made a false scientific claim.  Thus, no common ancestry in plants and animals have happened due to lack of evidence.

Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition.  We do not observe it happen today.  I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time.  That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see.  We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.

We also have see that the present isn't the key to the past.  It's not just Charles Darwin who has been debunked, but Charles Lyell and James Hutton.

What can I say?  Today's atheist scientists ignore too often evidence that goes against their evolution hypothesis.


----------



## Ringel05

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what's known as a closed mind........
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what you meant, there.
Click to expand...

It means you made up your mind about not "willing to suspend incredulity, religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha."  It means you've closed you mind to the possibility, that's something a true scientist never does.  
Before you come back with "how can it be possible" look up the difference between the words _possible_ and _probable_.  Anything is possible not everything is probable.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in _decent from a common ancestor _or _natural selection_ that violates the Baconian method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species.  Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin.  You are _caught_ trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one.  One that was discovered by a creation scientist first.  Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time.  If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures?  Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see.  In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils.  All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons.  I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing scientific in one of your statements except a false claim.  I have pointed out neatly your attempt to put together a false statement with a true one in your argument.  It is not I who is wrong, but you and it bears repeating that you made a false scientific claim.  Thus, no common ancestry in plants and animals have happened due to lack of evidence.
> 
> Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition.  We do not observe it happen today.  I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time.  That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see.  We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.
> 
> We also have see that the present isn't the key to the past.  It's not just Charles Darwin who has been debunked, but Charles Lyell and James Hutton.
> 
> What can I say?  Today's atheist scientists ignore too often evidence that goes against their evolution hypothesis.
Click to expand...


The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported theories in science.

Supply a valid, supported, competing theory for the diversity office on the planet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringel05 said:


> It means you made up your mind about not "willing to suspend incredulity, religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha."


Then you misunderstand, as evidenced by your creative edit that misrepresents me. 

People who believe those things will not change their minds in light of new info. That is close minded, by definition. 

Yes, "hooha" is my current opinion of the 1000s of competing and conflicting religious myths, all completely unsupported by evidence. It's not close minded to have that opinion. That's where you stumble.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in _decent from a common ancestor _or _natural selection_ that violates the Baconian method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species.  Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin.  You are _caught_ trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one.  One that was discovered by a creation scientist first.  Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time.  If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures?  Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see.  In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils.  All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons.  I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing scientific in one of your statements except a false claim.  I have pointed out neatly your attempt to put together a false statement with a true one in your argument.  It is not I who is wrong, but you and it bears repeating that you made a false scientific claim.  Thus, no common ancestry in plants and animals have happened due to lack of evidence.
> 
> Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition.  We do not observe it happen today.  I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time.  That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see.  We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.
> 
> We also have see that the present isn't the key to the past.  It's not just Charles Darwin who has been debunked, but Charles Lyell and James Hutton.
> 
> What can I say?  Today's atheist scientists ignore too often evidence that goes against their evolution hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported theories in science.
> 
> Supply a valid, supported, competing theory for the diversity office on the planet.
Click to expand...


ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.  It's one of evos claims for common ancestor hypothesis leading to macroevolution a gigantic claim of one species becoming a completely different species.

Anyway, there is no need to go further because you rarely have any answers worth thinking about.


----------



## james bond

Ringel05 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what's known as a closed mind........
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what you meant, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means you made up your mind about not "willing to suspend incredulity, religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha."  It means you've closed you mind to the possibility, that's something a true scientist never does.
> Before you come back with "how can it be possible" look up the difference between the words _possible_ and _probable_.  Anything is possible not everything is probable.
Click to expand...


You hit the nail about Fort Fun Indiana.  Not only is he closed minded, he gets a lot of things wrong.  It's why he only argues using a lot of ad hominem attacks and general opinions.  He doesn't have much of an education.  May not have made it to HS.


----------



## Ringel05

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means you made up your mind about not "willing to suspend incredulity, religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha."
> 
> 
> 
> Then you misunderstand, as evidenced by your creative edit that misrepresents me.
> 
> People who believe those things will not change their minds in light of new info. That is close minded, by definition.
> 
> Yes, "hooha" is my current opinion of the 1000s of competing and conflicting religious myths, all completely unsupported by evidence. It's not close minded to have that opinion. That's where you stumble.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind.  Supposedly science is supposed to be the absence of bias, bias creates closed minds, you have a bias and your mind is closed.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition.  We do not observe it happen today.  I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time.  That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see.  We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.


So if you don't observe your straw man today it didn't happen in the past?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringel05 said:


> We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind.


False. I still consider all of those myths possible. 

Anything else?


----------



## Ringel05

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I still consider all of those myths possible.
> 
> Anything else?
Click to expand...

False.  Given your obvious biased, extremely negative labeling of these "myths" you're lying to yourself and rationalizing for self justification otherwise you wouldn't use such demeaning labels for something you obviously look down your nose on.

Anything else?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.



Here is a recent example of a new human find, dubbed homo luzonensis, but is being ignored because it does not fit the transitional fossils of homo sapiens.  What kind of science ignores the evidence when it contradicts their main theory?

New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions | Evolution News

Let's see what happens to this fossil discovered around April 2019.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringel05 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I still consider all of those myths possible.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  Given your obvious biased, extremely negative labeling of these "myths" you're lying to yourself and rationalizing for self justification otherwise you wouldn't use such demeaning labels for something you obviously look down your nose on.
> 
> Anything else?
Click to expand...

Oops,wrong again. I would use the same label for astrology, or straight chiropractic, or tarot cards, homeopathy, or essential oil nonsense.

Bring evidence of the efficacy/truth of any of those things, and that could change. I invite all comers,in that respect.

Go ahead and present evidence of the age of the earth to one of these yec goobers, see what happens. 

Sorry bro, you are not going to put words in just the right order, or whine about me, and eventually end up at the false position that science is closed minded and magical thinking is open minded.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> So if you don't observe your straw man today it didn't happen in the past?



I'm just saying it violates the "present is the key to the past" thinking.  Also, we cannot observe what happened in the "past" of millions of years.  Thus, how can you even bring Baconian science into this?  It means you are wrong.

Moreover, instead of claiming logical disagreements with no evidence, why don't you explain how tailed to tailless monkeys happened?  You can't.  You could not answer when I asked the question.  If I destroyed one common ancestor, then haven't I destroyed them all?


----------



## Ringel05

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> False. I still consider all of those myths possible.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  Given your obvious biased, extremely negative labeling of these "myths" you're lying to yourself and rationalizing for self justification otherwise you wouldn't use such demeaning labels for something you obviously look down your nose on.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops,wrong again. I would use the same label for astrology, or straight chiropractic, or tarot cards, or essential oil nonsense.
> 
> Sorry bro, you are not going to put words in just the right order, or whine about me, and eventually end up at the false position that science is closed minded and magical thinking is open minded.
Click to expand...

Well I tried to get you to see where you're bias interferes with your judgement, didn't think it would work with someone so lock-minded but there was a chance however slim.  Enjoy your rationalizations, it's pretty much all you have.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in _decent from a common ancestor _or _natural selection_ that violates the Baconian method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species.  Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin.  You are _caught_ trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one.  One that was discovered by a creation scientist first.  Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time.  If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures?  Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see.  In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils.  All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons.  I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing scientific in one of your statements except a false claim.  I have pointed out neatly your attempt to put together a false statement with a true one in your argument.  It is not I who is wrong, but you and it bears repeating that you made a false scientific claim.  Thus, no common ancestry in plants and animals have happened due to lack of evidence.
> 
> Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition.  We do not observe it happen today.  I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time.  That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see.  We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.
> 
> We also have see that the present isn't the key to the past.  It's not just Charles Darwin who has been debunked, but Charles Lyell and James Hutton.
> 
> What can I say?  Today's atheist scientists ignore too often evidence that goes against their evolution hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported theories in science.
> 
> Supply a valid, supported, competing theory for the diversity office on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.  It's one of evos claims for common ancestor hypothesis leading to macroevolution a gigantic claim of one species becoming a completely different species.
> 
> Anyway, there is no need to go further because you rarely have any answers worth thinking about.
Click to expand...



*ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.*

What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a recent example of a new human find, dubbed homo luzonensis, but is being ignored because it does not fit the transitional fossils of homo sapiens.  What kind of science ignores the evidence when it contradicts their main theory?
> 
> New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions | Evolution News
> 
> Let's see what happens to this fossil discovered around April 2019.
Click to expand...

You may be the only one shocked that evolution is a complex interaction between time, place, climate, and environment.  If you wanted a simple linear progression you were bound to be disappointed.  Sorry.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.*
> 
> What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?



It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours.  It means I am right while you are wrong.

If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA.  This is based on statistics.  However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.  Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)  

If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference.  It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example.  The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You may be the only one shocked that evolution is a complex interaction between time, place, climate, and environment. If you wanted a simple linear progression you were bound to be disappointed. Sorry.



That's terrible and not what Darwin stated.  Can you find your two claims in Understanding Evolution  That's where I look up my evolution.

ETA:  And please do not forget homo luzonensis discovered this year.  Let's see what the atheist scientists make of it.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Clouds are 100% water vapor.  Watermelon is 97%.  Obviously clouds *evolved* from watermelon.
(Or is it the other way around?)

A>B>C>D

Sometimes D>C>B>A too.  Evolution answers every question.  If you don't understand how, you're just stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.*
> 
> What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours.  It means I am right while you are wrong.
> 
> If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA.  This is based on statistics.  However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.  Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)
> 
> If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference.  It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example.  The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.
Click to expand...


*If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics.  *

Yes, a very high percentage.

* However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.*

Exactly. And as time goes by, the differences increase.

* Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.) * 

It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be the only one shocked that evolution is a complex interaction between time, place, climate, and environment. If you wanted a simple linear progression you were bound to be disappointed. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's terrible and not what Darwin stated.  Can you find your two claims in Understanding Evolution  That's where I look up my evolution.
> 
> ETA:  And please do not forget homo luzonensis discovered this year.  Let's see what the atheist scientists make of it.
Click to expand...


*ETA: And please do not forget homo luzonensis discovered this year. Let's see what the atheist scientists make of it. *

Is this new fossil explained in Scripture?


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Clouds are 100% water vapor.  Watermelon is 97%.  Obviously clouds *evolved* from watermelon.
> (Or is it the other way around?)
> 
> A>B>C>D
> 
> Sometimes D>C>B>A too.  Evolution answers every question.  If you don't understand how, you're just stupid.



That was pointless. 

Carry on.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.*
> 
> What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours.  It means I am right while you are wrong.
> 
> If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA.  This is based on statistics.  However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.  Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)
> 
> If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference.  It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example.  The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.
Click to expand...


How do you know the gods used DNA?

Did the voices you hear tell you that?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a recent example of a new human find, dubbed homo luzonensis, but is being ignored because it does not fit the transitional fossils of homo sapiens.  What kind of science ignores the evidence when it contradicts their main theory?
> 
> New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions | Evolution News
> 
> Let's see what happens to this fossil discovered around April 2019.
Click to expand...


Evolution news is a blog maintained by a fundamentalist clown. Let’s see what happens when the fundie crank submits his data for peer review.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be the only one shocked that evolution is a complex interaction between time, place, climate, and environment. If you wanted a simple linear progression you were bound to be disappointed. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's terrible and not what Darwin stated.  Can you find your two claims in Understanding Evolution  That's where I look up my evolution.
> 
> ETA:  And please do not forget homo luzonensis discovered this year.  Let's see what the atheist scientists make of it.
Click to expand...

Darwin lived 150 years ago, we've learned a bit since:


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't observe your straw man today it didn't happen in the past?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just saying it violates the "present is the key to the past" thinking.  Also, we cannot observe what happened in the "past" of millions of years.  Thus, how can you even bring Baconian science into this?  It means you are wrong.
> 
> Moreover, instead of claiming logical disagreements with no evidence, why don't you explain how tailed to tailless monkeys happened?  You can't.  You could not answer when I asked the question.  If I destroyed one common ancestor, then haven't I destroyed them all?
Click to expand...

Actually, forensics is a subset of science that can tell us a great deal about the nature of past events.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in _decent from a common ancestor _or _natural selection_ that violates the Baconian method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species.  Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin.  You are _caught_ trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one.  One that was discovered by a creation scientist first.  Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time.  If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures?  Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see.  In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils.  All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.
Click to expand...


There are many transitional fossils. This has been addressed for you repeatedly so your statement that there are no transitional fossils is willful ignorance and / or profoundly ignorant


CC200:  Transitional fossils


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.*
> 
> What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours.  It means I am right while you are wrong.
> 
> If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA.  This is based on statistics.  However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.  Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)
> 
> If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference.  It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example.  The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics.  *
> 
> Yes, a very high percentage.
> 
> * However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.*
> 
> Exactly. And as time goes by, the differences increase.
> 
> * Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.) *
> 
> It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.​
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*"  How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?

Be careful now because the time you will experience depends on your answer?  I just know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.*
> 
> What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours.  It means I am right while you are wrong.
> 
> If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA.  This is based on statistics.  However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.  Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)
> 
> If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference.  It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example.  The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics.  *
> 
> Yes, a very high percentage.
> 
> * However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.*
> 
> Exactly. And as time goes by, the differences increase.
> 
> * Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.) *
> 
> It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*"  How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?
> 
> Be careful now because the time you will experience depends on your answer?  I just know.
Click to expand...


_What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*_

We're more closely related to species we more recently diverged from, more distantly related to species we diverged from further in the past. That's why the higher percentages of our DNA similarities are the chimps, compared to the orangutans, the orangutans, compared to the lemurs.

_How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?_​
Millions of years.​


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.*
> 
> What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours.  It means I am right while you are wrong.
> 
> If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA.  This is based on statistics.  However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.  Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)
> 
> If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference.  It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example.  The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics.  *
> 
> Yes, a very high percentage.
> 
> * However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.*
> 
> Exactly. And as time goes by, the differences increase.
> 
> * Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.) *
> 
> It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*"  How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?
> 
> Be careful now because the time you will experience depends on your answer?  I just know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*_
> 
> We're more closely related to species we more recently diverged from, more distantly related to species we diverged from further in the past. That's why the higher percentages of our DNA similarities are the chimps, compared to the orangutans, the orangutans, compared to the lemurs.
> 
> _How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?_
> 
> Millions of years.​
Click to expand...


Wrong answer.  May you experience the millions of years watching for the evolutionary changes and common ancestor in the next life.  Happy holidays to you, sir.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.*
> 
> What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours.  It means I am right while you are wrong.
> 
> If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA.  This is based on statistics.  However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.  Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)
> 
> If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference.  It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example.  The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics.  *
> 
> Yes, a very high percentage.
> 
> * However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.*
> 
> Exactly. And as time goes by, the differences increase.
> 
> * Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.) *
> 
> It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*"  How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?
> 
> Be careful now because the time you will experience depends on your answer?  I just know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*_
> 
> We're more closely related to species we more recently diverged from, more distantly related to species we diverged from further in the past. That's why the higher percentages of our DNA similarities are the chimps, compared to the orangutans, the orangutans, compared to the lemurs.
> 
> _How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?_
> 
> Millions of years.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer.  May you experience the millions of years watching for the evolutionary changes and common ancestor in the next life.  Happy holidays to you, sir.
Click to expand...


So, why is it that the gods chose to play a cruel joke on humans making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?

Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't observe your straw man today it didn't happen in the past?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just saying it violates the "present is the key to the past" thinking.  Also, we cannot observe what happened in the "past" of millions of years.  Thus, how can you even bring Baconian science into this?  It means you are wrong.
> 
> Moreover, instead of claiming logical disagreements with no evidence, why don't you explain how tailed to tailless monkeys happened?  You can't.  You could not answer when I asked the question.  If I destroyed one common ancestor, then haven't I destroyed them all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, forensics is a subset of science that can tell us a great deal about the nature of past events.
Click to expand...


Forensics_ is_ science.  The creation scientists use it to show the Earth is young.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> So, why is it that the gods chose to play a cruel joke on humans making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts?



In this, I have to agree.  It was the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air."  He saw the similarities and used it for his fake science to fool people with his lies.  Unfortunately, Satan isn't a beast, but a fallen angel.



Hollie said:


> What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?



God just reused his parts, and Satan took advantage of it.  Look how many people believe in the lies and now its mainstream.  Satan has made it so creation science is out of his fake science realm now.



Hollie said:


> Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.



Not superstition, but part of the supernatural according to the Bible.  The superstition you talk of is something man-made.

Why don't you believe _me_?  Instead, Satan makes you think what he wants you to think.  However, he's a master masquerader and thus is able to hide so people do not think he exists.  Very few question his existence.  There is a tv series called Lucifer on Netflix now.  The antagonist has the power to make you tell your deepest and darkest desires .


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities. (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.) *
> 
> It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.



>>It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.<<

smh.

BTW, the answer according to evolution was 70 million years when the monkeys started to exist.  The Bible states they were created on the 6th day.  There is no evolution in the Bible.

Where evolution is, in my opinion, in Satan's anti-Bible.  Using ToE, evolutionary thinking and history, we see that he contradicts everything God has said in the Bible.  Instead of humans and all land animals created on the 6th day, monkeys _evolved_ into humans.  We even have believers who think BioLogos or old Earth.  They and you have been misled.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.*
> 
> What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours.  It means I am right while you are wrong.
> 
> If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA.  This is based on statistics.  However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.  Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)
> 
> If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference.  It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example.  The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics.  *
> 
> Yes, a very high percentage.
> 
> * However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.*
> 
> Exactly. And as time goes by, the differences increase.
> 
> * Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.) *
> 
> It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*"  How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?
> 
> Be careful now because the time you will experience depends on your answer?  I just know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*_
> 
> We're more closely related to species we more recently diverged from, more distantly related to species we diverged from further in the past. That's why the higher percentages of our DNA similarities are the chimps, compared to the orangutans, the orangutans, compared to the lemurs.
> 
> _How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?_
> 
> Millions of years.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer.  May you experience the millions of years watching for the evolutionary changes and common ancestor in the next life.  Happy holidays to you, sir.
Click to expand...


*Wrong answer.  *

Feel free to post your proof.


----------



## TomParks

To believe in evolution you must be missing some marbles upstairs.....

Merry Christmas everyone!


----------



## ChemEngineer

TomParks said:


> To believe in evolution you must be missing some marbles upstairs.....
> 
> Merry Christmas everyone!



Except for atheists and agnostics.  No celebrations, no gifts.
ho ho ho
I mean, Bah, humbug!


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours.  It means I am right while you are wrong.
> 
> If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA.  This is based on statistics.  However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.  Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)
> 
> If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference.  It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example.  The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics.  *
> 
> Yes, a very high percentage.
> 
> * However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.*
> 
> Exactly. And as time goes by, the differences increase.
> 
> * Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.) *
> 
> It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*"  How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?
> 
> Be careful now because the time you will experience depends on your answer?  I just know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*_
> 
> We're more closely related to species we more recently diverged from, more distantly related to species we diverged from further in the past. That's why the higher percentages of our DNA similarities are the chimps, compared to the orangutans, the orangutans, compared to the lemurs.
> 
> _How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?_
> 
> Millions of years.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer.  May you experience the millions of years watching for the evolutionary changes and common ancestor in the next life.  Happy holidays to you, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong answer.  *
> 
> Feel free to post your proof.
Click to expand...


Too vague.  According to evolution, it was around 70 million years ago.

According to the Bible, land animals were created on the sixth day, estimated to be around 6,000 years ago.  

You didn't know either, so bzzzzzzzz wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics.  *
> 
> Yes, a very high percentage.
> 
> * However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.*
> 
> Exactly. And as time goes by, the differences increase.
> 
> * Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities.  (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.) *
> 
> It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*"  How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?
> 
> Be careful now because the time you will experience depends on your answer?  I just know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What evidence do you have for "*And as time goes by, the differences increase?*_
> 
> We're more closely related to species we more recently diverged from, more distantly related to species we diverged from further in the past. That's why the higher percentages of our DNA similarities are the chimps, compared to the orangutans, the orangutans, compared to the lemurs.
> 
> _How much time are you talking about?  An hour?  A day?  A month?  More?_
> 
> Millions of years.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer.  May you experience the millions of years watching for the evolutionary changes and common ancestor in the next life.  Happy holidays to you, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong answer.  *
> 
> Feel free to post your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too vague.  According to evolution, it was around 70 million years ago.
> 
> According to the Bible, land animals were created on the sixth day, estimated to be around 6,000 years ago.
> 
> You didn't know either, so bzzzzzzzz wrong.
Click to expand...


I agree, your "proof" is too vague.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't observe your straw man today it didn't happen in the past?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just saying it violates the "present is the key to the past" thinking.  Also, we cannot observe what happened in the "past" of millions of years.  Thus, how can you even bring Baconian science into this?  It means you are wrong.
> 
> Moreover, instead of claiming logical disagreements with no evidence, why don't you explain how tailed to tailless monkeys happened?  You can't.  You could not answer when I asked the question.  If I destroyed one common ancestor, then haven't I destroyed them all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, forensics is a subset of science that can tell us a great deal about the nature of past events.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forensics_ is_ science.  The creation scientists use it to show the Earth is young.
Click to expand...


So-called “Creation Science” is not science. It’s religious fundamentalism with a predefined conclusion. 

That, in part, is why the various creation ministries do no research and don’t publish in peer reviewed journals.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why is it that the gods chose to play a cruel joke on humans making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this, I have to agree.  It was the "god of the world and the prince of the power of the air."  He saw the similarities and used it for his fake science to fool people with his lies.  Unfortunately, Satan isn't a beast, but a fallen angel.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God just reused his parts, and Satan took advantage of it.  Look how many people believe in the lies and now its mainstream.  Satan has made it so creation science is out of his fake science realm now.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not superstition, but part of the supernatural according to the Bible.  The superstition you talk of is something man-made.
> 
> Why don't you believe _me_?  Instead, Satan makes you think what he wants you to think.  However, he's a master masquerader and thus is able to hide so people do not think he exists.  Very few question his existence.  There is a tv series called Lucifer on Netflix now.  The antagonist has the power to make you tell your deepest and darkest desires .
Click to expand...



Your childish fears and superstitions of Satans, beasts and other absurdities is disturbing. Living a life in trembling fear of Lucifer and conspiracy theories that Satan controls your mind is even more disturbing.


----------



## james bond

Here's another example of evolution fraud.  They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  It took God six days to create the Earth and universe and then he rested on the seventh.  Big bang took less than twenty minutes and still there is no good explanation or evidence.







"*Kepler’s laws of planetary motion*, in astronomy and classical physics, laws describing the motions of the planets in the solar system. They were derived by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler, whose analysis of the observations of the 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe enabled him to announce his first two laws in the year 1609 and a third law nearly a decade later, in 1618. Kepler himself never numbered these laws or specially distinguished them from his other discoveries."

Kepler’s laws of planetary motion | Definition, Diagrams, & Facts

Johannes Kepler was a creation scientist.

Johannes Kepler - creation.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here's another example of evolution fraud.  They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  It took God six days to create the Earth and universe and then he rested on the seventh.  Big bang took less than twenty minutes and still there is no good explanation or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Kepler’s laws of planetary motion*, in astronomy and classical physics, laws describing the motions of the planets in the solar system. They were derived by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler, whose analysis of the observations of the 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe enabled him to announce his first two laws in the year 1609 and a third law nearly a decade later, in 1618. Kepler himself never numbered these laws or specially distinguished them from his other discoveries."
> 
> Kepler’s laws of planetary motion | Definition, Diagrams, & Facts
> 
> Johannes Kepler was a creation scientist.
> 
> Johannes Kepler - creation.com



Kepler was not a “creation scientist”. it is fraudulent for you to attempt to impose your religious views on others. 

Nothing to do with biological evolution.

The charlatans at your crank creation ministry are frauds.

Don’t be an accomplice to fraud.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Here's another example of evolution fraud.  They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  It took God six days to create the Earth and universe and then he rested on the seventh.  Big bang took less than twenty minutes and still there is no good explanation or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Kepler’s laws of planetary motion*, in astronomy and classical physics, laws describing the motions of the planets in the solar system. They were derived by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler, whose analysis of the observations of the 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe enabled him to announce his first two laws in the year 1609 and a third law nearly a decade later, in 1618. Kepler himself never numbered these laws or specially distinguished them from his other discoveries."
> 
> Kepler’s laws of planetary motion | Definition, Diagrams, & Facts
> 
> Johannes Kepler was a creation scientist.
> 
> Johannes Kepler - creation.com



*Here's another example of evolution fraud. They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  *

Who has no explanation? Biologists? 
Where is it explained in the Bible?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> Except for atheists and agnostics. No celebrations, no gifts.


Except for all of them that are celebrating and opening gifts. Your misery is yours and yours alone, troll.


----------



## TomParks

ChemEngineer said:


> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> 
> To believe in evolution you must be missing some marbles upstairs.....
> 
> Merry Christmas everyone!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for atheists and agnostics.  No celebrations, no gifts.
> ho ho ho
> I mean, Bah, humbug!
Click to expand...


And no wanting to see loved ones that have passed on.....that always made me feel bad for them.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another example of evolution fraud.  They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  It took God six days to create the Earth and universe and then he rested on the seventh.  Big bang took less than twenty minutes and still there is no good explanation or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Kepler’s laws of planetary motion*, in astronomy and classical physics, laws describing the motions of the planets in the solar system. They were derived by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler, whose analysis of the observations of the 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe enabled him to announce his first two laws in the year 1609 and a third law nearly a decade later, in 1618. Kepler himself never numbered these laws or specially distinguished them from his other discoveries."
> 
> Kepler’s laws of planetary motion | Definition, Diagrams, & Facts
> 
> Johannes Kepler was a creation scientist.
> 
> Johannes Kepler - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kepler was not a “creation scientist”. it is fraudulent for you to attempt to impose your religious views on others.
> 
> Nothing to do with biological evolution.
> 
> The charlatans at your crank creation ministry are frauds.
> 
> Don’t be an accomplice to fraud.
Click to expand...


It's more evidence for God.  If evolutionary thinking could explain it, then it would have already.  What I am pointing out creation vs evolution (actually God vs. Satan) has been going on since the beginning of time.  How else can humans explain what has happened today?

If there wasn't evidence for God, then deep down you wouldn't be scared and that you believe in fake science.

Pain and suffering in the next life _forever_ is scary.  No amount of real or fake science can not alleviate the truth and that you'll be judged.

I'm not talking about ToE, but astrophysics.  It's evident that you cannot figure these things out because of the FEAR.  It the fear of getting burned when you put your face near the stove.  That's the physics of heat transfer or entropy of hot to cold.  We have to have opposites or physics does not work.  We have good, God, and evil, Satan to have opposites in the spiritual life.  You living and being about the think and type is evidence of the supernatural.  Your supernatural life spirit exists in the natural world.  This is why today's science of evolution is fake science.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another example of evolution fraud.  They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  It took God six days to create the Earth and universe and then he rested on the seventh.  Big bang took less than twenty minutes and still there is no good explanation or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Kepler’s laws of planetary motion*, in astronomy and classical physics, laws describing the motions of the planets in the solar system. They were derived by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler, whose analysis of the observations of the 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe enabled him to announce his first two laws in the year 1609 and a third law nearly a decade later, in 1618. Kepler himself never numbered these laws or specially distinguished them from his other discoveries."
> 
> Kepler’s laws of planetary motion | Definition, Diagrams, & Facts
> 
> Johannes Kepler was a creation scientist.
> 
> Johannes Kepler - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's another example of evolution fraud. They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  *
> 
> Who has no explanation? Biologists?
> Where is it explained in the Bible?
Click to expand...


Where's your explanation for the laws of planetary motion?  It's part of the natural world.  You have no answers, but I just gave it to you in post #341.  Have you burned your face, hands, or anything?  That's heat transfer.  When you're the entropy recipient, it hurts.  Oww, oww, ouch.  It's your biological makeup to experience pain and suffering.  Our biggest prescriptions are for opioids.  Can you explain how that evolved?  Can you explain AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

As I stated, you're a big boy now, so you should start doing your own research of the Bible if you want to understand AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another example of evolution fraud.  They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  It took God six days to create the Earth and universe and then he rested on the seventh.  Big bang took less than twenty minutes and still there is no good explanation or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Kepler’s laws of planetary motion*, in astronomy and classical physics, laws describing the motions of the planets in the solar system. They were derived by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler, whose analysis of the observations of the 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe enabled him to announce his first two laws in the year 1609 and a third law nearly a decade later, in 1618. Kepler himself never numbered these laws or specially distinguished them from his other discoveries."
> 
> Kepler’s laws of planetary motion | Definition, Diagrams, & Facts
> 
> Johannes Kepler was a creation scientist.
> 
> Johannes Kepler - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kepler was not a “creation scientist”. it is fraudulent for you to attempt to impose your religious views on others.
> 
> Nothing to do with biological evolution.
> 
> The charlatans at your crank creation ministry are frauds.
> 
> Don’t be an accomplice to fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more evidence for God.  If evolutionary thinking could explain it, then it would have already.  What I am pointing out creation vs evolution (actually God vs. Satan) has been going on since the beginning of time.  How else can humans explain what has happened today?
> 
> If there wasn't evidence for God, then deep down you wouldn't be scared and that you believe in fake science.
> 
> Pain and suffering in the next life _forever_ is scary.  No amount of real or fake science can not alleviate the truth and that you'll be judged.
> 
> I'm not talking about ToE, but astrophysics.  It's evident that you cannot figure these things out because of the FEAR.  It the fear of getting burned when you put your face near the stove.  That's the physics of heat transfer or entropy of hot to cold.  We have to have opposites or physics does not work.  We have good, God, and evil, Satan to have opposites in the spiritual life.  You living and being about the think and type is evidence of the supernatural.  Your supernatural life spirit exists in the natural world.  This is why today's science of evolution is fake science.
Click to expand...


Regarding your Medieval fears of things that go bump in the night, I can only suggest that you let go of the fears and superstitions that cause you such angst. 

Otherwise, your conspiracy theories about “fakes science” suggest you are an accomplice to the fraud of the Flat Earth charlatans. Don’t be duped into being an accomplice to fraud.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another example of evolution fraud.  They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  It took God six days to create the Earth and universe and then he rested on the seventh.  Big bang took less than twenty minutes and still there is no good explanation or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Kepler’s laws of planetary motion*, in astronomy and classical physics, laws describing the motions of the planets in the solar system. They were derived by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler, whose analysis of the observations of the 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe enabled him to announce his first two laws in the year 1609 and a third law nearly a decade later, in 1618. Kepler himself never numbered these laws or specially distinguished them from his other discoveries."
> 
> Kepler’s laws of planetary motion | Definition, Diagrams, & Facts
> 
> Johannes Kepler was a creation scientist.
> 
> Johannes Kepler - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's another example of evolution fraud. They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  *
> 
> Who has no explanation? Biologists?
> Where is it explained in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's your explanation for the laws of planetary motion?  It's part of the natural world.  You have no answers, but I just gave it to you in post #341.  Have you burned your face, hands, or anything?  That's heat transfer.  When you're the entropy recipient, it hurts.  Oww, oww, ouch.  It's your biological makeup to experience pain and suffering.  Our biggest prescriptions are for opioids.  Can you explain how that evolved?  Can you explain AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
> 
> As I stated, you're a big boy now, so you should start doing your own research of the Bible if you want to understand AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Click to expand...


*Where's your explanation for the laws of planetary motion?*

You first. Where is the Biblical explanation?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Regarding your Medieval fears of things that go bump in the night, I can only suggest that you let go of the fears and superstitions that cause you such angst.



It's not I who has angst and fears.  If I was a non-believer, then I'd probably wouldn't be wasting my time trying to explain evolution.  That said, I cannot explain evolution.  We do not have tailed to tailless monkeys.  If you go by traditional evolution, then there are no transitional forms.  If the "present is the key to the past," then we do not see any tailed to tailless monkeys either.  That would mean it didn't happen in the past.  Now, if you're dumb enough to believe the proto-tailed monkey, then there is no evidence of those either.  Maybe that transition never happened.  Thus, no evolution.  I can't think of any ToE that would prevent this from happening.

Since you know so much about ToE and biology, then why did some monkeys have tails anyway?  Dogs have tails and they still have them.  Why did monkeys have to lose their tails?

If you cannot explain it satisfactory, then the believers could be right and you go to the other place.  Have you thought about the people you're going to be with?  Toddsterpatriot, Fort Fun Indiana, and the other hardcore internet atheists?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You first. Where is the Biblical explanation?



See, this is why you are such an idiot.  You do not have an explanation .  So let's just skip the question and let me notch up another mark on my imaginary atheist gun.

The Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  It does not teach geocentrism.  What their creation scientists, Copernicus and Galileo, discovered was heliocentrism.  Non-heliocentrism or geocentrism was what the the Catholics under Pope Gregory XVI during the Middle Ages wanted.

"They must hold that Pope Gregory XVI, who is revered by Catholic traditionalists for his condemnations of liberalism and indifferentism, betrayed the Catholic faith in removing all non-geocentric works from the Index in 1835."

Man, it might've been fun watching the liberals and indfferentials, I guess atheists, being tortured on the rack, the whipping X, the burning wheel, and such.

Geocentrism and the First Vatican Council


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You first. Where is the Biblical explanation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is why you are such an idiot.  You do not have an explanation .  So let's just skip the question and let me notch up another mark on my imaginary atheist gun.
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  It does not teach geocentrism.  What their creation scientists, Copernicus and Galileo, discovered was heliocentrism.  Non-heliocentrism or geocentrism was what the the Catholics under Pope Gregory XVI during the Middle Ages wanted.
> 
> "They must hold that Pope Gregory XVI, who is revered by Catholic traditionalists for his condemnations of liberalism and indifferentism, betrayed the Catholic faith in removing all non-geocentric works from the Index in 1835."
> 
> Man, it might've been fun watching the liberals and indfferentials, I guess atheists, being tortured on the rack, the whipping X, the burning wheel, and such.
> 
> Geocentrism and the First Vatican Council
Click to expand...


*You do not have an explanation*

You said science can't explain it....but Genesis can.
So show me.

*So let's just skip the question*

Don't run away now......


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your Medieval fears of things that go bump in the night, I can only suggest that you let go of the fears and superstitions that cause you such angst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not I who has angst and fears.  If I was a non-believer, then I'd probably wouldn't be wasting my time trying to explain evolution.  That said, I cannot explain evolution.  We do not have tailed to tailless monkeys.  If you go by traditional evolution, then there are no transitional forms.  If the "present is the key to the past," then we do not see any tailed to tailless monkeys either.  That would mean it didn't happen in the past.  Now, if you're dumb enough to believe the proto-tailed monkey, then there is no evidence of those either.  Maybe that transition never happened.  Thus, no evolution.  I can't think of any ToE that would prevent this from happening.
> 
> Since you know so much about ToE and biology, then why did some monkeys have tails anyway?  Dogs have tails and they still have them.  Why did monkeys have to lose their tails?
> 
> If you cannot explain it satisfactory, then the believers could be right and you go to the other place.  Have you thought about the people you're going to be with?  Toddsterpatriot, Fort Fun Indiana, and the other hardcore internet atheists?
Click to expand...


Just curious as to why the gods would magically create monkeys without tails? Adaptation (an evolutionary imperative), can explain the differences among similar species. Charles Darwin's groundbreaking works in the studies of differences among finches provided remarkable insight into adaptation as an evolutionary process. 

Why did the gods put stripes on horses (we call them Zebra)?

Why did the gods do such a miserable "design" with DNA such that disease and deformity afflict humans and animals alike?

Why are the gods such incompetent "designers"?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You first. Where is the Biblical explanation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is why you are such an idiot.  You do not have an explanation .  So let's just skip the question and let me notch up another mark on my imaginary atheist gun.
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  It does not teach geocentrism.  What their creation scientists, Copernicus and Galileo, discovered was heliocentrism.  Non-heliocentrism or geocentrism was what the the Catholics under Pope Gregory XVI during the Middle Ages wanted.
> 
> "They must hold that Pope Gregory XVI, who is revered by Catholic traditionalists for his condemnations of liberalism and indifferentism, betrayed the Catholic faith in removing all non-geocentric works from the Index in 1835."
> 
> Man, it might've been fun watching the liberals and indfferentials, I guess atheists, being tortured on the rack, the whipping X, the burning wheel, and such.
> 
> Geocentrism and the First Vatican Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You do not have an explanation*
> 
> You said science can't explain it....but Genesis can.
> So show me.
> 
> *So let's just skip the question*
> 
> Don't run away now......
Click to expand...


You did not have how evolutionary thinking explains the laws of planetary motion.  The reason being it were creation scientists who came up with it such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.  We see a lot of this as God created the stars, planets, moons, and the laws of planetary motion on the fourth day in Genesis.  You should have known the first part as I have posted the days of creation to you as a simple chart.  What it means is God did the creation and told us what we needed to know.  The rest we have had to find out.  This is why we have science and why creation science is the real science.

"14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day." Genesis 1:14-19

Today, the creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from science so evolution cannot be challenged.  God has been eliminated and I think he is upset.  Thus, the belief the end of the world is nearing.  I tend to agree with Sir Isaac Newton's swag of 2060 back in his time.  However, no one knows and will know when it happens.  When it happens though, everyone will know and see.  Needless to say, it will be quite a spectacle of billions of people miraculously being able to see everything.

Instead, your interest is not reading the Bible to find the truth, but to criticize it.  *Do you have an explanation for why evolution throughout the years contradicts everything written in the Bible? *I discovered it and started this thread earlier, but it isn't a topic worth pursuing because Satan is too strong -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.  He wishes to remain hidden so people grant his wish.  I'm no different.  For example, that Lucifer tv series on Netflix probably won't last long.

Thus, I ask atheists questions for them to answer, but they aren't really interested in the true answers.  They really don't know and have the details.  All they have is a sketchy view of the Earth and universe and believe it because of the atheistic faith.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your Medieval fears of things that go bump in the night, I can only suggest that you let go of the fears and superstitions that cause you such angst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not I who has angst and fears.  If I was a non-believer, then I'd probably wouldn't be wasting my time trying to explain evolution.  That said, I cannot explain evolution.  We do not have tailed to tailless monkeys.  If you go by traditional evolution, then there are no transitional forms.  If the "present is the key to the past," then we do not see any tailed to tailless monkeys either.  That would mean it didn't happen in the past.  Now, if you're dumb enough to believe the proto-tailed monkey, then there is no evidence of those either.  Maybe that transition never happened.  Thus, no evolution.  I can't think of any ToE that would prevent this from happening.
> 
> Since you know so much about ToE and biology, then why did some monkeys have tails anyway?  Dogs have tails and they still have them.  Why did monkeys have to lose their tails?
> 
> If you cannot explain it satisfactory, then the believers could be right and you go to the other place.  Have you thought about the people you're going to be with?  Toddsterpatriot, Fort Fun Indiana, and the other hardcore internet atheists?
Click to expand...


You're at a disadvantage in any discussion regarding science because you are forever tied to dogma that is preached by fundamentalist ministries. You are correct. You cannot explain evolution. There is no requirement for tailed to tailless monkeys. It's unfortunate but you recite these silly hymnals that are preached from creationist ministries.

Your silly slogan: "traditional evolution" means what?. It's a meaingless term so why use it?  The science of evolution has shown a great many transitional species. You can ignore the facts but the facts don't magically disappear becaus they conflict with your dogma.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You first. Where is the Biblical explanation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is why you are such an idiot.  You do not have an explanation .  So let's just skip the question and let me notch up another mark on my imaginary atheist gun.
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  It does not teach geocentrism.  What their creation scientists, Copernicus and Galileo, discovered was heliocentrism.  Non-heliocentrism or geocentrism was what the the Catholics under Pope Gregory XVI during the Middle Ages wanted.
> 
> "They must hold that Pope Gregory XVI, who is revered by Catholic traditionalists for his condemnations of liberalism and indifferentism, betrayed the Catholic faith in removing all non-geocentric works from the Index in 1835."
> 
> Man, it might've been fun watching the liberals and indfferentials, I guess atheists, being tortured on the rack, the whipping X, the burning wheel, and such.
> 
> Geocentrism and the First Vatican Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You do not have an explanation*
> 
> You said science can't explain it....but Genesis can.
> So show me.
> 
> *So let's just skip the question*
> 
> Don't run away now......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not have how evolutionary thinking explains the laws of planetary motion.  The reason being it were creation scientists who came up with it such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.  We see a lot of this as God created the stars, planets, moons, and the laws of planetary motion on the fourth day in Genesis.  You should have known the first part as I have posted the days of creation to you as a simple chart.  What it means is God did the creation and told us what we needed to know.  The rest we have had to find out.  This is why we have science and why creation science is the real science.
> 
> "14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day." Genesis 1:14-19
> 
> Today, the creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from science so evolution cannot be challenged.  God has been eliminated and I think he is upset.  Thus, the belief the end of the world is nearing.  I tend to agree with Sir Isaac Newton's swag of 2060 back in his time.  However, no one knows and will know when it happens.  When it happens though, everyone will know and see.  Needless to say, it will be quite a spectacle of billions of people miraculously being able to see everything.
> 
> Instead, your interest is not reading the Bible to find the truth, but to criticize it.  *Do you have an explanation for why evolution throughout the years contradicts everything written in the Bible? *I discovered it and started this thread earlier, but it isn't a topic worth pursuing because Satan is too strong -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.  He wishes to remain hidden so people grant his wish.  I'm no different.  For example, that Lucifer tv series on Netflix probably won't last long.
> 
> Thus, I ask atheists questions for them to answer, but they aren't really interested in the true answers.  They really don't know and have the details.  All they have is a sketchy view of the Earth and universe and believe it because of the atheistic faith.
Click to expand...


*Do you have an explanation for why evolution throughout the years contradicts everything written in the Bible?*
*
The bibles are wrong. Obviously. 


Do you have an explanation for the absurdities within the bibles?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You first. Where is the Biblical explanation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is why you are such an idiot.  You do not have an explanation .  So let's just skip the question and let me notch up another mark on my imaginary atheist gun.
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  It does not teach geocentrism.  What their creation scientists, Copernicus and Galileo, discovered was heliocentrism.  Non-heliocentrism or geocentrism was what the the Catholics under Pope Gregory XVI during the Middle Ages wanted.
> 
> "They must hold that Pope Gregory XVI, who is revered by Catholic traditionalists for his condemnations of liberalism and indifferentism, betrayed the Catholic faith in removing all non-geocentric works from the Index in 1835."
> 
> Man, it might've been fun watching the liberals and indfferentials, I guess atheists, being tortured on the rack, the whipping X, the burning wheel, and such.
> 
> Geocentrism and the First Vatican Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You do not have an explanation*
> 
> You said science can't explain it....but Genesis can.
> So show me.
> 
> *So let's just skip the question*
> 
> Don't run away now......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not have how evolutionary thinking explains the laws of planetary motion.  The reason being it were creation scientists who came up with it such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.  We see a lot of this as God created the stars, planets, moons, and the laws of planetary motion on the fourth day in Genesis.  You should have known the first part as I have posted the days of creation to you as a simple chart.  What it means is God did the creation and told us what we needed to know.  The rest we have had to find out.  This is why we have science and why creation science is the real science.
> 
> "14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day." Genesis 1:14-19
> 
> Today, the creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from science so evolution cannot be challenged.  God has been eliminated and I think he is upset.  Thus, the belief the end of the world is nearing.  I tend to agree with Sir Isaac Newton's swag of 2060 back in his time.  However, no one knows and will know when it happens.  When it happens though, everyone will know and see.  Needless to say, it will be quite a spectacle of billions of people miraculously being able to see everything.
> 
> Instead, your interest is not reading the Bible to find the truth, but to criticize it.  *Do you have an explanation for why evolution throughout the years contradicts everything written in the Bible? *I discovered it and started this thread earlier, but it isn't a topic worth pursuing because Satan is too strong -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.  He wishes to remain hidden so people grant his wish.  I'm no different.  For example, that Lucifer tv series on Netflix probably won't last long.
> 
> Thus, I ask atheists questions for them to answer, but they aren't really interested in the true answers.  They really don't know and have the details.  All they have is a sketchy view of the Earth and universe and believe it because of the atheistic faith.
Click to expand...


*You did not have how evolutionary thinking explains the laws of planetary motion.*

Only because evolution has zero to do with planetary motion.

*The reason being it were creation scientists who came up with it such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.  *

Well, if you want to post the Biblical passage that explains planetary motion, I'll be happy to look at it.

*Today, the creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from science *

Only because "creation science" isn't science.

*so evolution cannot be challenged.*​
Of course it can be challenged. If you have scientific evidence to challenge it, lay it out.

*Do you have an explanation for why evolution throughout the years contradicts everything written in the Bible?*

I disagree with your premise.​


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your Medieval fears of things that go bump in the night, I can only suggest that you let go of the fears and superstitions that cause you such angst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not I who has angst and fears.  If I was a non-believer, then I'd probably wouldn't be wasting my time trying to explain evolution.  That said, I cannot explain evolution.  We do not have tailed to tailless monkeys.  If you go by traditional evolution, then there are no transitional forms.  If the "present is the key to the past," then we do not see any tailed to tailless monkeys either.  That would mean it didn't happen in the past.  Now, if you're dumb enough to believe the proto-tailed monkey, then there is no evidence of those either.  Maybe that transition never happened.  Thus, no evolution.  I can't think of any ToE that would prevent this from happening.
> 
> Since you know so much about ToE and biology, then why did some monkeys have tails anyway?  Dogs have tails and they still have them.  Why did monkeys have to lose their tails?
> 
> If you cannot explain it satisfactory, then the believers could be right and you go to the other place.  Have you thought about the people you're going to be with?  Toddsterpatriot, Fort Fun Indiana, and the other hardcore internet atheists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're at a disadvantage in any discussion regarding science because you are forever tied to dogma that is preached by fundamentalist ministries. You are correct. You cannot explain evolution. There is no requirement for tailed to tailless monkeys. It's unfortunate but you recite these silly hymnals that are preached from creationist ministries.
> 
> Your silly slogan: "traditional evolution" means what?. It's a meaingless term so why use it?  The science of evolution has shown a great many transitional species. You can ignore the facts but the facts don't magically disappear becaus they conflict with your dogma.
Click to expand...


>>You're at a disadvantage in any discussion regarding science because you are forever tied to dogma that is preached by fundamentalist ministries.<<

Your first sentence is strange because I think you are at a disadvantage discussing science.  I get this from you not really discussing science, but criticizing me instead.

OTOH, I understand science and provide the links.  The only links I have for creation science is now the creation websites when before there were in regular science websites.  Otherwise, I use science websites for my science and natural selection.

>>There is no requirement for tailed to tailless monkeys.<<

Now, you are wrong and I do not want to discuss vestigial organs and post another link.  You just have to learn evolution for yourself .

Anyway, I'm back to ignoring your screed again as it is more ad hominem attacks and claims of religious dogma instead of real science.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You did not have how evolutionary thinking explains the laws of planetary motion.*
> 
> Only because evolution has zero to do with planetary motion.



Obviously, you do not understand evolutionary thinking and history.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The reason being it were creation scientists who came up with it such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. *
> 
> Well, if you want to post the Biblical passage that explains planetary motion, I'll be happy to look at it.
> 
> *Today, the creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from science *
> 
> Only because "creation science" isn't science.
> 
> *so evolution cannot be challenged.*
> 
> Of course it can be challenged. If you have scientific evidence to challenge it, lay it out.
> 
> *Do you have an explanation for why evolution throughout the years contradicts everything written in the Bible?*
> 
> I disagree with your premise.​



As for the rest, I'm tired of answering your questions while you never answer mine.  We've already debunked evolution as fraud in this thread.  Anyway, we are done due to my being _bored_ to death.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You did not have how evolutionary thinking explains the laws of planetary motion.*
> 
> Only because evolution has zero to do with planetary motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you do not understand evolutionary thinking and history.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason being it were creation scientists who came up with it such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. *
> 
> Well, if you want to post the Biblical passage that explains planetary motion, I'll be happy to look at it.
> 
> *Today, the creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from science *
> 
> Only because "creation science" isn't science.
> 
> *so evolution cannot be challenged.*
> 
> Of course it can be challenged. If you have scientific evidence to challenge it, lay it out.
> 
> *Do you have an explanation for why evolution throughout the years contradicts everything written in the Bible?*
> 
> I disagree with your premise.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the rest, I'm tired of answering your questions while you never answer mine.  We've already debunked evolution as fraud in this thread.  Anyway, we are done due to my being _bored_ to death.
Click to expand...


*Obviously, you do not understand evolutionary thinking and history.*

Feel free to explain it to me. Especially the part concerning planetary motion.

*We've already debunked evolution as fraud in this thread. *

You're lying. 

Just like you lied here......*They have no explanation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion.*

Scientists do have an explanation. Where in the Bible does it explain how to calculate an elliptical orbit?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Haha, we have reached the point again where the YEC weirdos, despite being on the wrong side of all of science, despite being laughed out of every science textbook and classroom on the planet, despite being embarrassed repeatedly for the demonstrably false nonsense they say, despite failing a science quiz a 12 year old would easily pass, despite having not a shred of evidence, and despite getting their science from an iron age book of fairy tales...


....declare sweeping victory. 

Hilarious, every time.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your Medieval fears of things that go bump in the night, I can only suggest that you let go of the fears and superstitions that cause you such angst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not I who has angst and fears.  If I was a non-believer, then I'd probably wouldn't be wasting my time trying to explain evolution.  That said, I cannot explain evolution.  We do not have tailed to tailless monkeys.  If you go by traditional evolution, then there are no transitional forms.  If the "present is the key to the past," then we do not see any tailed to tailless monkeys either.  That would mean it didn't happen in the past.  Now, if you're dumb enough to believe the proto-tailed monkey, then there is no evidence of those either.  Maybe that transition never happened.  Thus, no evolution.  I can't think of any ToE that would prevent this from happening.
> 
> Since you know so much about ToE and biology, then why did some monkeys have tails anyway?  Dogs have tails and they still have them.  Why did monkeys have to lose their tails?
> 
> If you cannot explain it satisfactory, then the believers could be right and you go to the other place.  Have you thought about the people you're going to be with?  Toddsterpatriot, Fort Fun Indiana, and the other hardcore internet atheists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're at a disadvantage in any discussion regarding science because you are forever tied to dogma that is preached by fundamentalist ministries. You are correct. You cannot explain evolution. There is no requirement for tailed to tailless monkeys. It's unfortunate but you recite these silly hymnals that are preached from creationist ministries.
> 
> Your silly slogan: "traditional evolution" means what?. It's a meaingless term so why use it?  The science of evolution has shown a great many transitional species. You can ignore the facts but the facts don't magically disappear becaus they conflict with your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>You're at a disadvantage in any discussion regarding science because you are forever tied to dogma that is preached by fundamentalist ministries.<<
> 
> Your first sentence is strange because I think you are at a disadvantage discussing science.  I get this from you not really discussing science, but criticizing me instead.
> 
> OTOH, I understand science and provide the links.  The only links I have for creation science is now the creation websites when before there were in regular science websites.  Otherwise, I use science websites for my science and natural selection.
> 
> >>There is no requirement for tailed to tailless monkeys.<<
> 
> Now, you are wrong and I do not want to discuss vestigial organs and post another link.  You just have to learn evolution for yourself .
> 
> Anyway, I'm back to ignoring your screed again as it is more ad hominem attacks and claims of religious dogma instead of real science.
Click to expand...


A familiar tactic of the religious extremists is to announce their feelings are hurt when their arguments for magic and supernaturalism are met with glaring light of scrutiny. 

I should advise that links to fundamentalist creation ministries masquerading as “science” are useless for a meaningful discussion of the natural world. As you know, creation.com (sometimes called “Comedy Central”), as an “about” page where there clearly define their religious agenda. They state specifically their fundamentalist religious bias so let’s not pretend they are a “science” source.


----------



## zaangalewa

Bye, bye to everyone

Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulaion I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. In do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> Bye, bye to everyone
> 
> Because of the intrigant censorship in "the global warming fraud" including an intransparent form of mind manipulaion I will leave the forum USMessageBoard. In do not think it will make in my future life a big sense to try to speak any longer with people from the English speaking world.


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> Do you have an explanation for the absurdities within the bibles?


Yes, it’s because you seek to confirm your bias. Instead of reading for content.


----------



## Questioner

Hollie said:


> A familiar tactic of the religious extremists is to announce their feelings are hurt when their arguments for magic and supernaturalism are met with glaring light of scrutiny.


That's more archaic 19th century nonsense, since it doesn't define what the ambigious term "magic" is to begin with, neither does it "supernatural" - in the sense that thoughts, ideas or mental concepts, such as the very mathematical axioms upon which dated theories, such as those of Bacon's natural sciences are based on to begin with, one could easily assert that thoughts are "supernatural"



> I should advise that links to fundamentalist creation ministries masquerading as “science” are useless for a meaningful discussion of the natural world.


Thoughts aren't part of the "natural world", the faith-based axioms which those theories or approximations are based on to begin with, are not only fundamentally contradictory, but themselves are not a part of the "natural world".

I'm honestly thankful that the archaic 19th century natural sciences and their theories and the dated mathematical approximations which they're based on to begin with, not held to by simple people and propagandists in the media because they're "true" in any inherent sense, but simply because they've been around for quite a while and stood the test of time, or simply "make sense" to some people in a very limited and anti-intellectual way which is "convenient" rather than true in any ultimate sense to begin with, akin to archaic forms of conservatism or Toryism.

It's highly probable that new sciences such as computer science and those spawned from the Information age will render those archaic sciences and their hilariously dated and naïve axioms and propositions obsolete except to the serially and severely archaic, holding to them in the same way a traditionalist Catholic incapable of deeper or non-ridged thinking, or having any worldview of approximation of reality which exists within the confines of his favorite propaganda media network, marketed to the level of a 6th grade reading level and indoctrination thereof - would to his dying and archaic faith - much as social media is the archaic, dinosaur media on TV or radio, soon to go the way of Blockbuster video rentals.

The internet is, thankfully, where "irreligion", in the archaic 19th century sense as described above, and the misinformation, lack of education, and 6th grade reading and literacy levels naturally associated with it, has come to die, perhaps likely and possibly for good, much as the very nations and cultural aspects thereof which depend on such archaism and the ignorance of its collective masses, no more educated, literate, or capable of rational though devoid of indoctrination than the average sports or Nascar fan, will come to die as well, having no where left to go in the real world, or the new information economy and its emerging sciences, but to hide in their sheltered little bubbles and echochamber, unable to grasp truth and it's emerging complexities, as opposed to clining to the archaic myths and fables with the legitimacy of the dying natural sciences and Bacon's method as a whole are predicated on for their false and superstitious legimacy to begin with, at least in Britian and America primarily, as opposed to the rest of the world, its economies, and its institutions; meaning that being totally blind and obvious to perhaps 90% of the real world as it is more or less a perquisite for having childish faith in the naïve fables and superstitions associated with such a decepit and utterly nonsensical worldview to begin with.

Most being so stupid or poorly educated, that explaining the basic principles and precepts of reductionism, and the fallacies thereof, such as equating two things as identical merely on the basis of a shared or miniscule similarity or trait, which could be done with any two things made from matter and energy, all other similarities or differences be damned.

Nor even understanding the meaning of contexts and the arbitrations required for the meaning of the various taxonomies or approximations, such as zoology, in which every species and be identified, compared, conflated, or contrasted on the basis of shared taxonomies, much as every member of the animal kingdom itself could be conflated or contrasted with other beings or constructs of matter and energy to begin with, such as rocks.

Simplistic statements and folk wisdom such as "people are apes", are no more 'true or false' than "people are primates", "people are animals", "people are molecules, atoms, matter and energy" - yet even such miniscule facts and logic such as this are lost on the simpler and more-anti-intellectual and anti-aesthetic variety of people, to whom they merely provide some mythical assurance or sense of identity, devoid of higher reason, logic, creativity, and so forth.

Just simple little slogans and mantras for simple, 19th century people and relics of a dead or dying day and age altogether, good riddance, says the rest of the world and the thinking men and women contained within it, and comprising of it.


----------



## Hollie

Questioner said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A familiar tactic of the religious extremists is to announce their feelings are hurt when their arguments for magic and supernaturalism are met with glaring light of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> That's more archaic 19th century nonsense, since it doesn't define what the ambigious term "magic" is to begin with, neither does it "supernatural" - in the sense that thoughts, ideas or mental concepts, such as the very mathematical axioms upon which dated theories, such as those of Bacon's natural sciences are based on to begin with, one could easily assert that thoughts are "supernatural"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should advise that links to fundamentalist creation ministries masquerading as “science” are useless for a meaningful discussion of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thoughts aren't part of the "natural world", the faith-based axioms which those theories or approximations are based on to begin with, are not only fundamentally contradictory, but themselves are not a part of the "natural world".
> 
> I'm honestly thankful that the archaic 19th century natural sciences and their theories and the dated mathematical approximations which they're based on to begin with, not held to by simple people and propagandists in the media because they're "true" in any inherent sense, but simply because they've been around for quite a while and stood the test of time, or simply "make sense" to some people in a very limited and anti-intellectual way which is "convenient" rather than true in any ultimate sense to begin with, akin to archaic forms of conservatism or Toryism.
> 
> It's highly probable that new sciences such as computer science and those spawned from the Information age will render those archaic sciences and their hilariously dated and naïve axioms and propositions obsolete except to the serially and severely archaic, holding to them in the same way a traditionalist Catholic incapable of deeper or non-ridged thinking, or having any worldview of approximation of reality which exists within the confines of his favorite propaganda media network, marketed to the level of a 6th grade reading level and indoctrination thereof - would to his dying and archaic faith - much as social media is the archaic, dinosaur media on TV or radio, soon to go the way of Blockbuster video rentals.
> 
> The internet is, thankfully, where "irreligion", in the archaic 19th century sense as described above, and the misinformation, lack of education, and 6th grade reading and literacy levels naturally associated with it, has come to die, perhaps likely and possibly for good, much as the very nations and cultural aspects thereof which depend on such archaism and the ignorance of its collective masses, no more educated, literate, or capable of rational though devoid of indoctrination than the average sports or Nascar fan, will come to die as well, having no where left to go in the real world, or the new information economy and its emerging sciences, but to hide in their sheltered little bubbles and echochamber, unable to grasp truth and it's emerging complexities, as opposed to clining to the archaic myths and fables with the legitimacy of the dying natural sciences and Bacon's method as a whole are predicated on for their false and superstitious legimacy to begin with, at least in Britian and America primarily, as opposed to the rest of the world, its economies, and its institutions; meaning that being totally blind and obvious to perhaps 90% of the real world as it is more or less a perquisite for having childish faith in the naïve fables and superstitions associated with such a decepit and utterly nonsensical worldview to begin with.
> 
> Most being so stupid or poorly educated, that explaining the basic principles and precepts of reductionism, and the fallacies thereof, such as equating two things as identical merely on the basis of a shared or miniscule similarity or trait, which could be done with any two things made from matter and energy, all other similarities or differences be damned.
> 
> Nor even understanding the meaning of contexts and the arbitrations required for the meaning of the various taxonomies or approximations, such as zoology, in which every species and be identified, compared, conflated, or contrasted on the basis of shared taxonomies, much as every member of the animal kingdom itself could be conflated or contrasted with other beings or constructs of matter and energy to begin with, such as rocks.
> 
> Simplistic statements and folk wisdom such as "people are apes", are no more 'true or false' than "people are primates", "people are animals", "people are molecules, atoms, matter and energy" - yet even such miniscule facts and logic such as this are lost on the simpler and more-anti-intellectual and anti-aesthetic variety of people, to whom they merely provide some mythical assurance or sense of identity, devoid of higher reason, logic, creativity, and so forth.
> 
> Just simple little slogans and mantras for simple, 19th century people and relics of a dead or dying day and age altogether, good riddance, says the rest of the world and the thinking men and women contained within it, and comprising of it.
Click to expand...


Please pay attention. The term “magic” in the context of discussions with religious extremists (yes, Ringtone, that means you), is straightforward.

Similarly, the term “supernatural” is unambiguous; outside the bounds of the natural world. 

The rest of your rambling, disjointed screed is vintage Ringtone and the other accounts you have posted under.


----------



## Questioner

Hollie said:


> Questioner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A familiar tactic of the religious extremists is to announce their feelings are hurt when their arguments for magic and supernaturalism are met with glaring light of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> That's more archaic 19th century nonsense, since it doesn't define what the ambigious term "magic" is to begin with, neither does it "supernatural" - in the sense that thoughts, ideas or mental concepts, such as the very mathematical axioms upon which dated theories, such as those of Bacon's natural sciences are based on to begin with, one could easily assert that thoughts are "supernatural"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should advise that links to fundamentalist creation ministries masquerading as “science” are useless for a meaningful discussion of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thoughts aren't part of the "natural world", the faith-based axioms which those theories or approximations are based on to begin with, are not only fundamentally contradictory, but themselves are not a part of the "natural world".
> 
> I'm honestly thankful that the archaic 19th century natural sciences and their theories and the dated mathematical approximations which they're based on to begin with, not held to by simple people and propagandists in the media because they're "true" in any inherent sense, but simply because they've been around for quite a while and stood the test of time, or simply "make sense" to some people in a very limited and anti-intellectual way which is "convenient" rather than true in any ultimate sense to begin with, akin to archaic forms of conservatism or Toryism.
> 
> It's highly probable that new sciences such as computer science and those spawned from the Information age will render those archaic sciences and their hilariously dated and naïve axioms and propositions obsolete except to the serially and severely archaic, holding to them in the same way a traditionalist Catholic incapable of deeper or non-ridged thinking, or having any worldview of approximation of reality which exists within the confines of his favorite propaganda media network, marketed to the level of a 6th grade reading level and indoctrination thereof - would to his dying and archaic faith - much as social media is the archaic, dinosaur media on TV or radio, soon to go the way of Blockbuster video rentals.
> 
> The internet is, thankfully, where "irreligion", in the archaic 19th century sense as described above, and the misinformation, lack of education, and 6th grade reading and literacy levels naturally associated with it, has come to die, perhaps likely and possibly for good, much as the very nations and cultural aspects thereof which depend on such archaism and the ignorance of its collective masses, no more educated, literate, or capable of rational though devoid of indoctrination than the average sports or Nascar fan, will come to die as well, having no where left to go in the real world, or the new information economy and its emerging sciences, but to hide in their sheltered little bubbles and echochamber, unable to grasp truth and it's emerging complexities, as opposed to clining to the archaic myths and fables with the legitimacy of the dying natural sciences and Bacon's method as a whole are predicated on for their false and superstitious legimacy to begin with, at least in Britian and America primarily, as opposed to the rest of the world, its economies, and its institutions; meaning that being totally blind and obvious to perhaps 90% of the real world as it is more or less a perquisite for having childish faith in the naïve fables and superstitions associated with such a decepit and utterly nonsensical worldview to begin with.
> 
> Most being so stupid or poorly educated, that explaining the basic principles and precepts of reductionism, and the fallacies thereof, such as equating two things as identical merely on the basis of a shared or miniscule similarity or trait, which could be done with any two things made from matter and energy, all other similarities or differences be damned.
> 
> Nor even understanding the meaning of contexts and the arbitrations required for the meaning of the various taxonomies or approximations, such as zoology, in which every species and be identified, compared, conflated, or contrasted on the basis of shared taxonomies, much as every member of the animal kingdom itself could be conflated or contrasted with other beings or constructs of matter and energy to begin with, such as rocks.
> 
> Simplistic statements and folk wisdom such as "people are apes", are no more 'true or false' than "people are primates", "people are animals", "people are molecules, atoms, matter and energy" - yet even such miniscule facts and logic such as this are lost on the simpler and more-anti-intellectual and anti-aesthetic variety of people, to whom they merely provide some mythical assurance or sense of identity, devoid of higher reason, logic, creativity, and so forth.
> 
> Just simple little slogans and mantras for simple, 19th century people and relics of a dead or dying day and age altogether, good riddance, says the rest of the world and the thinking men and women contained within it, and comprising of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please pay attention. The term “magic” in the context of discussions with religious extremists (yes, Ringtone, that means you), is straightforward.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

What do you mean by "magic"? David Blaine? Chris Angel?



> Similarly, the term “supernatural” is unambiguous; outside the bounds of the natural world.


That's what thoughts, mathematics, and theories about the natural world built from mathematical approximations and thought are, yes.


----------



## OldBiologist

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." C.S. Lewis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not physical bodies with a spirit, we are spiritual beings inside physical bodies. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin  (From memory.  If you wish, look it up and make any corrections.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s funny when religious extremists blather on with abstract ideas such as “spirits” and supernaturalism while not submitting any case to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing extreme.  It's _observable_.  I think OldBiologist kicked the bucket after I told him as he still didn't believe it like you.  He probably couldn't take it that he was wrong all his life while you're still in denial.
Click to expand...


No, I’ve been busy. I spend most of my time on a couple other forums. Evolution is as much a fact as molecular biology, radiology, or any other scientific field. Researchers deal with the raw stuff of evolution in labs everyday at the molecular level. Thousands of experiments have been conducted clearly showing evolution of bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fruit flies, etc. or making use of evolution to produce certain results.

You can ignore the science going on all around you, makes no difference, but you should focus your argument where you have the strongest objection, the evolution of higher animals including Homo sapiens as postulated by anthropologists and paleontologists. The huge majority of evolutionary molecular biologists are busy doing actual experiments, manipulating the raw material of evolution, to be concerned about theories on the origin of man.


----------



## ChemEngineer

OldBiologist said:


> No, I’ve been busy. I spend most of my time on a couple other forums. Evolution is as much a fact as molecular biology, radiology, or any other scientific field. Researchers deal with the raw stuff of evolution in labs everyday at the molecular level. Thousands of experiments have been conducted clearly showing evolution of bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fruit flies, etc. or making use of evolution to produce certain results.
> 
> You can ignore the science going on all around you, makes no difference, but you should focus your argument where you have the strongest objection, the evolution of higher animals including Homo sapiens as postulated by anthropologists and paleontologists. The huge majority of evolutionary molecular biologists are busy doing actual experiments, manipulating the raw material of evolution, to be concerned about theories on the origin of man.



It is you Darwinists who ignore all the science going on all around you.  No, fruit flies have NOT "evolved."  All that thousands of generations of fruit fly trials have produced are monsters, unable to survive outside their little safe harbors.   If you honestly understood protein synthesis and its statistical insuperability,you would not swear allegiance to Darwin, who knew NOTHING about it in 1859.

Titin, the largest protein in your body, is a chain of 33,450 amino acid residues in precise order.

What is 20 to the 33,450th power, the number of possible sequences of a polypeptide that long?

Keep in mind that only 1 in 10 the 77th power sequences is functional, in a protein of 150 amino acid residues long.  And there are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

A>B>C>D, Richard Dawkins childish representation of Magic Selection, doesn't cut it in contemporary science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> OldBiologist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I’ve been busy. I spend most of my time on a couple other forums. Evolution is as much a fact as molecular biology, radiology, or any other scientific field. Researchers deal with the raw stuff of evolution in labs everyday at the molecular level. Thousands of experiments have been conducted clearly showing evolution of bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fruit flies, etc. or making use of evolution to produce certain results.
> 
> You can ignore the science going on all around you, makes no difference, but you should focus your argument where you have the strongest objection, the evolution of higher animals including Homo sapiens as postulated by anthropologists and paleontologists. The huge majority of evolutionary molecular biologists are busy doing actual experiments, manipulating the raw material of evolution, to be concerned about theories on the origin of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you Darwinists who ignore all the science going on all around you.  No, fruit flies have NOT "evolved."  All that thousands of generations of fruit fly trials have produced are monsters, unable to survive outside their little safe harbors.   If you honestly understood protein synthesis and its statistical insuperability,you would not swear allegiance to Darwin, who knew NOTHING about it in 1859.
> 
> Titin, the largest protein in your body, is a chain of 33,450 amino acid residues in precise order.
> 
> What is 20 to the 33,450th power, the number of possible sequences of a polypeptide that long?
> 
> Keep in mind that only 1 in 10 the 77th power sequences is functional, in a protein of 150 amino acid residues long.  And there are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.
> 
> A>B>C>D, Richard Dawkins childish representation of Magic Selection, doesn't cut it in contemporary science.
Click to expand...

You would get laughed out of a 7th grade science class.


----------



## james bond

OldBiologist said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." C.S. Lewis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not physical bodies with a spirit, we are spiritual beings inside physical bodies. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin  (From memory.  If you wish, look it up and make any corrections.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s funny when religious extremists blather on with abstract ideas such as “spirits” and supernaturalism while not submitting any case to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing extreme.  It's _observable_.  I think OldBiologist kicked the bucket after I told him as he still didn't believe it like you.  He probably couldn't take it that he was wrong all his life while you're still in denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I’ve been busy. I spend most of my time on a couple other forums. Evolution is as much a fact as molecular biology, radiology, or any other scientific field. Researchers deal with the raw stuff of evolution in labs everyday at the molecular level. Thousands of experiments have been conducted clearly showing evolution of bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fruit flies, etc. or making use of evolution to produce certain results.
> 
> You can ignore the science going on all around you, makes no difference, but you should focus your argument where you have the strongest objection, the evolution of higher animals including Homo sapiens as postulated by anthropologists and paleontologists. The huge majority of evolutionary molecular biologists are busy doing actual experiments, manipulating the raw material of evolution, to be concerned about theories on the origin of man.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I missed your post.  I had to do a search just to see if you were posting anymore.  

It's understandable that you miss out on the main points such as the supernatural and natural co-existing right in front of you.  I just destroyed two of your fellow atheists in another S&T forum.  At least, I know you're going to try and stream roll me with biology and ToE.  Oh, it's not EIF, but still ToE so you're wrong there.  We both know that if evolution was a fact, then both sides would be able to use it, i.e. everyone.  We can only use natural selection which creation scientist Alfred Russel Wallace gave us.

As you've discovered, it's only at the molecular level that God has allowed humans to create.  Only God can create at the atomic level or below the molecular level.  This is more evidence for God just like the big one I demonstrated for you in life spirit or God's breath.  It also means no abiogenesis -- which is just _modern wording_ for spontaneous generation that Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked.  Only life begats life.  All of the examples you give is natural selection.  Did Darwin call his theory microevolution?

What new science am I ignoring?  Can you provide a few links so I know what you are referring to?  BTW, I trust the anthropologists more than the paleontologists.  The paleos are too much into evolution, so they are much too fake for me.

Anyway, have you realized that ToE, evolutionary thinking and history contradicts everything that God stated in the Bible regarding science.  This cannot be a coincidence.  As you may be aware different people from all walks of life wrote the Bible as it was _inspired_ by the Holy Spirit.  It took about 1500 years to write and compile to what we have today.  OTOH, we have had various secular or atheist scientists write what I call Satan's Antibible in Evolution.  Satan is of rebellious nature, so he contradicted everything that God said about science.  I can understand a few discrepancies, but not everything.  Usually, it means something is terribly bad when you have coincidences such as this.  This is more evidence for God and Satan.

Anyway, I'll list some of the differences between fake science (evolution) vs real science (creation):
Abiogenesis vs God creating mature animals
Aliens vs no aliens
Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs) vs only microevolution
Billions of year old universe and Earth vs young universe and Earth (same age)
Earth is not special vs God focused on creating Earth 
Multiverses vs universe 
Singularity and Cosmic Expansion vs first day 
Quantum particles pop in and out of existence vs creation of spacetime 
Things happen in the universe through dark energy and dark matter vs God and gravity (?)
Universe is boundless and does not have a center vs universe bounded and galactocentric (Milky Way)
There is no hell nor heaven vs there is
There is nothing after we die vs there is

Anyway, Happy 2020!


----------



## bripat9643

Questioner said:


> Most of what people believe and postulate about evolution is a fraud, yes, the merits of it, or the other theories of evolution which have existed independently and proceeded Darwin's own take on the subject, or of the other theories or mathematical approximations under the scope of Francis Bacon's scientific methodologies, being a different subject entirely....
> 
> Evolution, more often than not, sadly, is just what ugly people use as a surrogate for an imaginary friend or heathen deity, much as is the case in most superstitious and supercilious views and homages to "science", popular science to be more specific... were Francis Bacon still here, he may very well be rolling in his grave, cliché as that one often is... or perhaps he would've just chalked it up to human nature and stupidity in general, of which we are all potentially prone to.


I've never seen such ignorance displayed in print before.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> Anyway, I'll list some of the differences between fake science (evolution) vs real science (creation):
> Abiogenesis vs God creating mature animals
> Aliens vs no aliens
> Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs) vs only microevolution
> Billions of year old universe and Earth vs young universe and Earth (same age)
> Earth is not special vs God focused on creating Earth
> Multiverses vs universe
> Singularity and Cosmic Expansion vs first day
> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence vs creation of spacetime
> Things happen in the universe through dark energy and dark matter vs God and gravity (?)
> Universe is boundless and does not have a center vs universe bounded and galactocentric (Milky Way)
> There is no hell nor heaven vs there is
> There is nothing after we die vs there is
> 
> Anyway, Happy 2020!



Deep and wide.  Rather like God's Brilliant Creations. To imagine and pretend that the wonders surrounding us simply happened is the height of anti-science and it is unintelligent - a word I first read in the Potsdam Declaration rather recently.


----------



## james bond

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll list some of the differences between fake science (evolution) vs real science (creation):
> Abiogenesis vs God creating mature animals
> Aliens vs no aliens
> Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs) vs only microevolution
> Billions of year old universe and Earth vs young universe and Earth (same age)
> Earth is not special vs God focused on creating Earth
> Multiverses vs universe
> Singularity and Cosmic Expansion vs first day
> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence vs creation of spacetime
> Things happen in the universe through dark energy and dark matter vs God and gravity (?)
> Universe is boundless and does not have a center vs universe bounded and galactocentric (Milky Way)
> There is no hell nor heaven vs there is
> There is nothing after we die vs there is
> 
> Anyway, Happy 2020!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deep and wide.  Rather like God's Brilliant Creations. To imagine and pretend that the wonders surrounding us simply happened is the height of anti-science and it is unintelligent - a word I first read in the Potsdam Declaration rather recently.
Click to expand...


This all started when cnm claimed birds are dinosaurs now.  Only one of two so called macroevolution occurrences where one species becomes another.  I looked it up under days of creation and it said birds and flying animals were created on day five and land animals on day six.  Thus, birds came before dinosaurs and they lived at the same time.  It was only after going back and forth with him that everything that the atheists and evolutionists say contradicts the Bible and God's word.  Some of these are so far out such as birds from dinosaurs to birds _are_ dinosaurs is positively uncanny.  It could not be a coincidence.  Usually, bad things that happen together such as a robbery and killing happening around the same time and place are not due to coincidence.


----------



## bripat9643

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll list some of the differences between fake science (evolution) vs real science (creation):
> Abiogenesis vs God creating mature animals
> Aliens vs no aliens
> Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs) vs only microevolution
> Billions of year old universe and Earth vs young universe and Earth (same age)
> Earth is not special vs God focused on creating Earth
> Multiverses vs universe
> Singularity and Cosmic Expansion vs first day
> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence vs creation of spacetime
> Things happen in the universe through dark energy and dark matter vs God and gravity (?)
> Universe is boundless and does not have a center vs universe bounded and galactocentric (Milky Way)
> There is no hell nor heaven vs there is
> There is nothing after we die vs there is
> 
> Anyway, Happy 2020!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deep and wide.  Rather like God's Brilliant Creations. To imagine and pretend that the wonders surrounding us simply happened is the height of anti-science and it is unintelligent - a word I first read in the Potsdam Declaration rather recently.
Click to expand...

No one ever said they "simply happened."  How they happened doesn't mean you get to claim God did it.  That's what you believers in the great gaseous vertebrate with a penis are always doing.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll list some of the differences between fake science (evolution) vs real science (creation):
> Abiogenesis vs God creating mature animals
> Aliens vs no aliens
> Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs) vs only microevolution
> Billions of year old universe and Earth vs young universe and Earth (same age)
> Earth is not special vs God focused on creating Earth
> Multiverses vs universe
> Singularity and Cosmic Expansion vs first day
> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence vs creation of spacetime
> Things happen in the universe through dark energy and dark matter vs God and gravity (?)
> Universe is boundless and does not have a center vs universe bounded and galactocentric (Milky Way)
> There is no hell nor heaven vs there is
> There is nothing after we die vs there is
> 
> Anyway, Happy 2020!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deep and wide.  Rather like God's Brilliant Creations. To imagine and pretend that the wonders surrounding us simply happened is the height of anti-science and it is unintelligent - a word I first read in the Potsdam Declaration rather recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This all started when cnm claimed birds are dinosaurs now.  Only one of two so called macroevolution occurrences where one species becomes another.  I looked it up under days of creation and it said birds and flying animals were created on day five and land animals on day six.  Thus, birds came before dinosaurs and they lived at the same time.  It was only after going back and forth with him that everything that the atheists and evolutionists say contradicts the Bible and God's word.  Some of these are so far out such as birds from dinosaurs to birds _are_ dinosaurs is positively uncanny.  It could not be a coincidence.  Usually, bad things that happen together such as a robbery and killing happening around the same time and place are not due to coincidence.
Click to expand...

The depth of your deliberate ignorance is astounding.


----------



## bripat9643

Questioner said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A familiar tactic of the religious extremists is to announce their feelings are hurt when their arguments for magic and supernaturalism are met with glaring light of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> That's more archaic 19th century nonsense, since it doesn't define what the ambigious term "magic" is to begin with, neither does it "supernatural" - in the sense that thoughts, ideas or mental concepts, such as the very mathematical axioms upon which dated theories, such as those of Bacon's natural sciences are based on to begin with, one could easily assert that thoughts are "supernatural"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should advise that links to fundamentalist creation ministries masquerading as “science” are useless for a meaningful discussion of the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thoughts aren't part of the "natural world", the faith-based axioms which those theories or approximations are based on to begin with, are not only fundamentally contradictory, but themselves are not a part of the "natural world".
> 
> I'm honestly thankful that the archaic 19th century natural sciences and their theories and the dated mathematical approximations which they're based on to begin with, not held to by simple people and propagandists in the media because they're "true" in any inherent sense, but simply because they've been around for quite a while and stood the test of time, or simply "make sense" to some people in a very limited and anti-intellectual way which is "convenient" rather than true in any ultimate sense to begin with, akin to archaic forms of conservatism or Toryism.
> 
> It's highly probable that new sciences such as computer science and those spawned from the Information age will render those archaic sciences and their hilariously dated and naïve axioms and propositions obsolete except to the serially and severely archaic, holding to them in the same way a traditionalist Catholic incapable of deeper or non-ridged thinking, or having any worldview of approximation of reality which exists within the confines of his favorite propaganda media network, marketed to the level of a 6th grade reading level and indoctrination thereof - would to his dying and archaic faith - much as social media is the archaic, dinosaur media on TV or radio, soon to go the way of Blockbuster video rentals.
> 
> The internet is, thankfully, where "irreligion", in the archaic 19th century sense as described above, and the misinformation, lack of education, and 6th grade reading and literacy levels naturally associated with it, has come to die, perhaps likely and possibly for good, much as the very nations and cultural aspects thereof which depend on such archaism and the ignorance of its collective masses, no more educated, literate, or capable of rational though devoid of indoctrination than the average sports or Nascar fan, will come to die as well, having no where left to go in the real world, or the new information economy and its emerging sciences, but to hide in their sheltered little bubbles and echochamber, unable to grasp truth and it's emerging complexities, as opposed to clining to the archaic myths and fables with the legitimacy of the dying natural sciences and Bacon's method as a whole are predicated on for their false and superstitious legimacy to begin with, at least in Britian and America primarily, as opposed to the rest of the world, its economies, and its institutions; meaning that being totally blind and obvious to perhaps 90% of the real world as it is more or less a perquisite for having childish faith in the naïve fables and superstitions associated with such a decepit and utterly nonsensical worldview to begin with.
> 
> Most being so stupid or poorly educated, that explaining the basic principles and precepts of reductionism, and the fallacies thereof, such as equating two things as identical merely on the basis of a shared or miniscule similarity or trait, which could be done with any two things made from matter and energy, all other similarities or differences be damned.
> 
> Nor even understanding the meaning of contexts and the arbitrations required for the meaning of the various taxonomies or approximations, such as zoology, in which every species and be identified, compared, conflated, or contrasted on the basis of shared taxonomies, much as every member of the animal kingdom itself could be conflated or contrasted with other beings or constructs of matter and energy to begin with, such as rocks.
> 
> Simplistic statements and folk wisdom such as "people are apes", are no more 'true or false' than "people are primates", "people are animals", "people are molecules, atoms, matter and energy" - yet even such miniscule facts and logic such as this are lost on the simpler and more-anti-intellectual and anti-aesthetic variety of people, to whom they merely provide some mythical assurance or sense of identity, devoid of higher reason, logic, creativity, and so forth.
> 
> Just simple little slogans and mantras for simple, 19th century people and relics of a dead or dying day and age altogether, good riddance, says the rest of the world and the thinking men and women contained within it, and comprising of it.
Click to expand...

The idea that your superstitious nonsense is some superior brand of intellectualism doesn't pass the laugh test.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll list some of the differences between fake science (evolution) vs real science (creation):
> Abiogenesis vs God creating mature animals
> Aliens vs no aliens
> Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs) vs only microevolution
> Billions of year old universe and Earth vs young universe and Earth (same age)
> Earth is not special vs God focused on creating Earth
> Multiverses vs universe
> Singularity and Cosmic Expansion vs first day
> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence vs creation of spacetime
> Things happen in the universe through dark energy and dark matter vs God and gravity (?)
> Universe is boundless and does not have a center vs universe bounded and galactocentric (Milky Way)
> There is no hell nor heaven vs there is
> There is nothing after we die vs there is
> 
> Anyway, Happy 2020!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deep and wide.  Rather like God's Brilliant Creations. To imagine and pretend that the wonders surrounding us simply happened is the height of anti-science and it is unintelligent - a word I first read in the Potsdam Declaration rather recently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This all started when cnm claimed birds are dinosaurs now.  Only one of two so called macroevolution occurrences where one species becomes another.  I looked it up under days of creation and it said birds and flying animals were created on day five and land animals on day six.  Thus, birds came before dinosaurs and they lived at the same time.  It was only after going back and forth with him that everything that the atheists and evolutionists say contradicts the Bible and God's word.  Some of these are so far out such as birds from dinosaurs to birds _are_ dinosaurs is positively uncanny.  It could not be a coincidence.  Usually, bad things that happen together such as a robbery and killing happening around the same time and place are not due to coincidence.
Click to expand...

There's too much idiocy in that paragraph to bother disentangling all the falsehoods.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643, you are just coming unglued here.  It's why nobody should take you seriously in the S&T forum.  What kind of degree do you have?  HS diploma?  GED?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643, you are just coming unglued here.  It's why nobody should take you seriously in the S&T forum.  What kind of degree do you have?  HS diploma?  GED?


As always, you fail to provide a shred of evidence to support your imbecile claims.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> To imagine and pretend that the wonders surrounding us simply happened


Stupid comment. We are talking about HOW it happened. You nutsacks can still point at all of it and say, "God did that!". Knock yourselves out.


----------



## ChemEngineer

bripat9643 said:


> There's too much idiocy in that paragraph to bother disentangling all the falsehoods.



You win the name-calling contest.  It's a pathetic claim but it's  all yours.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent


----------



## bripat9643

ChemEngineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's too much idiocy in that paragraph to bother disentangling all the falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You win the name-calling contest.  It's a pathetic claim but it's  all yours.
> 
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
Click to expand...

Facts and logic are wasted on true believers like you.  That's what it means to have faith.  That's why ridicule is the only thing that has any chance of success.


----------



## Death Angel

Mac1958 said:


> No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.
> 
> Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.


You can know. You choose not to.


----------



## ChemEngineer

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643, you are just coming unglued here.  It's why nobody should take you seriously in the S&T forum.  What kind of degree do you have?  HS diploma?  GED?
> 
> 
> 
> As always, you fail to provide a shred of evidence to support your imbecile claims.
Click to expand...


I will first address my dear friend, James Bond.  Intellectualism is no indicator of rectitude or common sense.  The Left pretends otherwise, but then again, they are Leftists so....

Now as to bripat9643, who continues to shreik in a manner most unseemly, you didn't respond to James Bond's question of your educational credentials, almost certainly because you have nothing worth mentioning.  But then again, you talk just like the extremely hateful Richard Dawkins, a world famous evolutionary biologist with whom I have corresponded at some length regarding the numerous errors in his books on evolution.  Dawkins ignored my comments on his errors and simply called me names, like his  young understudy, bripat9643 does to everyone who disagrees with him.  Unintelligent and unscientific, both.


----------



## ChemEngineer

bripat9643 said:


> Facts and logic are wasted on true believers like you.  That's what it means to have faith.  That's why ridicule is the only thing that has any chance of success.



Facts and logic are presented in abundance in the link you dismissed.  Scholars worldwide are quoted.  What professor in what university lectures with ridicule to have "any chance of success"?  What scholar has recommended ridicule as a teaching instrument?  Please enlighten everyone.  I know it's extremely popular with the Left. It's all you have.

Now please join your Leftist friends on my Ignore List.  If what some have to say is really so "idiotic," you shouldn't waste your time even reading it, should you?  So I won't waste any more of my time reading your emotional rants, devoid of information, rationality, or common sense.

Arriverderci brutto


----------



## bripat9643

ChemEngineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643, you are just coming unglued here.  It's why nobody should take you seriously in the S&T forum.  What kind of degree do you have?  HS diploma?  GED?
> 
> 
> 
> As always, you fail to provide a shred of evidence to support your imbecile claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will first address my dear friend, James Bond.  Intellectualism is no indicator of rectitude or common sense.  The Left pretends otherwise, but then again, they are Leftists so....
> 
> Now as to bripat9643, who continues to shreik in a manner most unseemly, you didn't respond to James Bond's question of your educational credentials, almost certainly because you have nothing worth mentioning.  But then again, you talk just like the extremely hateful Richard Dawkins, a world famous evolutionary biologist with whom I have corresponded at some length regarding the numerous errors in his books on evolution.  Dawkins ignored my comments on his errors and simply called me names, like his  young understudy, bripat9643 does to everyone who disagrees with him.  Unintelligent and unscientific, both.
Click to expand...


As I said previously, facts and logic are wasted on true believers like you.  Faith is the rejection of facts and logic and your theories are all based on faith.  The Bible is a collection of fairy tales.  Whenever you quote the Bible as evidence to support some proposition, you automatically proving your claims are unjustified.

My education is irrelevant to this discussion.  Your questions about it are simply an example of the fallacy known is "appeal to authority."    You can have 1000 PHDs and still be wrong.


----------



## Mac1958

Death Angel said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one really knows where we came from, or how we got here.
> Anyone who thinks they have The Answer is delusional and egotistical.
> 
> 
> 
> You can know. You choose not to.
Click to expand...

Ah, so where do we come from?

Nice to know that I know someone with The Answer.
.


----------



## bripat9643

ChemEngineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts and logic are wasted on true believers like you.  That's what it means to have faith.  That's why ridicule is the only thing that has any chance of success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts and logic are presented in abundance in the link you dismissed.  Scholars worldwide are quoted.  What professor in what university lectures with ridicule to have "any chance of success"?  What scholar has recommended ridicule as a teaching instrument?  Please enlighten everyone.  I know it's extremely popular with the Left. It's all you have.
> 
> Now please join your Leftist friends on my Ignore List.  If what some have to say is really so "idiotic," you shouldn't waste your time even reading it, should you?  So I won't waste any more of my time reading your emotional rants, devoid of information, rationality, or common sense.
> 
> Arriverderci brutto
Click to expand...

You can't teach people who don't want to learn.   Ridicule is the only thing that has any affect on the deliberately ignorant.  I am not trying to teach you anything.  that would be a waste of effort.  All I'm trying to do is get you to feel reluctance or shame at spouting your idiocies.

The facts Bond presents are irrelevant to the subject under discussion.


----------



## ChemEngineer

“*Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith.   Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic.  (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley*

*“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God. *

*“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.”  ― Max Planck*

*"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University*

*There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. - Robert Jastrow*


----------



## bripat9643

ChemEngineer said:


> “*Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith.   Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic.  (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley*
> 
> *“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God. *
> 
> *“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.”  ― Max Planck*
> 
> *"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University*
> 
> *There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. - Robert Jastrow*


_Appeal to authority_ - a logical fallacy


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> *Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God. *


Yes, all the discoveries you have been claiming to be fake, you embarrassing fraud. You can't even keep your shit straight. To ignore with the other Frannie sock puppets you go...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac1958 said:


> Ah, so where do we come from?
> 
> Nice to know that I know someone with The Answer.


Weird that he just disappeared, eh?


----------



## LuckyDuck

andaronjim said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

LuckyDuck said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

LuckyDuck said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim said:


> Really, what the fuck is a "Theory".


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


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim said:


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


Maybe there is. Why can't you be satisfied just to point at everything and say, "God did that?"

You can't, not because anything about science contradicts a belief in God, but because it contradicts your narrow, preferred dogma. So stop trying to spin it the wrong way.


----------



## ChemEngineer

LuckyDuck said:


> Just FYI.  There's a difference between an average theory and a scientific theory.



You pretend that *science* has a patina which is virtually perfect, and you further pretend that you Godless Leftists have exclusive rights to all of the virtues of *science*.  Both of your claims are nonsensical.



LuckyDuck said:


> As for Evolution.....Paleontologists have a perfect example of evolution, it's called the horse.  They have all the changing fossils down its lineage.



You call a series of horse fossils of varying size "a perfect example"?
Examine the skeletons of chihuahuas and terriers and other dogs of varying sizes up to the largest one and tell me about that "evolution".
They're all DOGS.  HELLO!  And chihuahuas are not noticeably less intelligent than the largest dog with the biggest brain.  So much for the "evolution"  of big-brained humans.  The biggest brained animal on earth is the sperm whale.  Are they building computers?  Communicating with us? 



LuckyDuck said:


> 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 (sic) have most and are continually trying to solve any unknowns.



As if only *science* seeks solutions and has this fantastic  "self-correcting mechanism" you Godless Leftists swoon about.
1.  Every animal has a "self-correcting mechanism."
2. Every PLANT has a "self-correcting mechanism."  They seek sunlight and water.  They heal cut branches.  They respond to various stimuli.
3.  BACTERIA even have this wondrous "self-correcting mechanism" you pretend and claim is so magical a property of *science*.



LuckyDuck said:


> Logic:  Microbes gradually over millions of years, changing (evolving) and growing more complex.
> Illogic/Ignorance:  The invisible thingy in the sky whipped up everything.



4.  Nature's God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
Your childish talk  of "invisible thingy in the sky" is condescending ignorance.   This visible universe is a product of Nature's God, Who is outside of it and time and matter.  
5.  If microbes continue to "evolve," then why do we still see them everywhere when Darwin CLAIMED they were replaced by the Magic Wand of Selection?  They *evolved* into something far superior and more "fit" but they're still here?  That is your illogic and ignorance working overtime.

http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just FYI.  There's a difference between an average theory and a scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pretend that *science* has a patina which is virtually perfect, and you further pretend that you Godless Leftists have exclusive rights to all of the virtues of *science*.  Both of your claims are nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Evolution.....Paleontologists have a perfect example of evolution, it's called the horse.  They have all the changing fossils down its lineage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call a series of horse fossils of varying size "a perfect example"?
> Examine the skeletons of chihuahuas and terriers and other dogs of varying sizes up to the largest one and tell me about that "evolution".
> They're all DOGS.  HELLO!  And chihuahuas are not noticeably less intelligent than the largest dog with the biggest brain.  So much for the "evolution"  of big-brained humans.  The biggest brained animal on earth is the sperm whale.  Are they building computers?  Communicating with us?
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 (sic) have most and are continually trying to solve any unknowns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if only *science* seeks solutions and has this fantastic  "self-correcting mechanism" you Godless Leftists swoon about.
> 1.  Every animal has a "self-correcting mechanism."
> 2. Every PLANT has a "self-correcting mechanism."  They seek sunlight and water.  They heal cut branches.  They respond to various stimuli.
> 3.  BACTERIA even have this wondrous "self-correcting mechanism" you pretend and claim is so magical a property of *science*.
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic:  Microbes gradually over millions of years, changing (evolving) and growing more complex.
> Illogic/Ignorance:  The invisible thingy in the sky whipped up everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4.  Nature's God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
> Your childish talk  of "invisible thingy in the sky" is condescending ignorance.   This visible universe is a product of Nature's God, Who is outside of it and time and matter.
> 5.  If microbes continue to "evolve," then why do we still see them everywhere when Darwin CLAIMED they were replaced by the Magic Wand of Selection?  They *evolved* into something far superior and more "fit" but they're still here?  That is your illogic and ignorance working overtime.
> 
> http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com
Click to expand...


It’s stereotypical that religious extremists get angry and emotive when their sacred cows are challenged.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> “*Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith.   Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic.  (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley*
> 
> *“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God. *
> 
> *“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.”  ― Max Planck*
> 
> *"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University*
> 
> *There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. - Robert Jastrow*



Cutting and pasting a few opinions serves what purpose?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, what the fuck is a "Theory".
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, you meant "scientific theory". Why not try looking it up, like a big boy?
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, PROVE there isnt a God......
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe there is. Why can't you be satisfied just to point at everything and say, "God did that?"
> 
> You can't, not because anything about science contradicts a belief in God, but because it contradicts your narrow, preferred dogma. So stop trying to spin it the wrong way.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you cant prove that there isnt a God?  Look in the mirror and see how symmetrical you face is.  Random chance on chromosomes would look like this.


----------



## Hollie

andaronjim said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, PROVE there isnt a God......
Click to expand...


I have definitive proof the gods don’t exist. 

Prove I don’t. 

Thanks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

andaronjim said:


> 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.



andaronjim said:


> At one time the Earth was flat


*Was never a scientific theory, already embarrassing himself



andaronjim said:


> 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

andaronjim said:


> 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

andaronjim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, what the fuck is a "Theory".
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, you meant "scientific theory". Why not try looking it up, like a big boy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


@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

Hollie said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, PROVE there isnt a God......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have definitive proof the gods don’t exist.
> 
> Prove I don’t.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

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

ChemEngineer said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, what the fuck is a "Theory".
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, you meant "scientific theory". Why not try looking it up, like a big boy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @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.
Click to expand...

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

andaronjim said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> @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.
Click to expand...


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

ChemEngineer said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> @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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

ChemEngineer said:


> 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

andaronjim said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...

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

andaronjim said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, PROVE there isnt a God......
Click to expand...

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

andaronjim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, PROVE there isnt a God......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have definitive proof the gods don’t exist.
> 
> Prove I don’t.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...

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

LuckyDuck said:


> 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

ChemEngineer said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

ChemEngineer said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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).
Click to expand...

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

LuckyDuck said:


> 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

ChemEngineer said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...


*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?


----------



## ChemEngineer

LuckyDuck said:


> 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 (sic) , when the only rule or law that should be followed would be a simple "do no harm to others."



Where is this "rule or law" that you cite written?  Why haven't atheists such as Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao and Pol Pot followed it?  They've murdered many more millions and much more recently than the Christians on which you atheists are obsessed.

By the way, the plural of "millennium" is "millennia."  Spelling is *hard*.  You have an "invisible thingy."  It's called "a quantum vacuum."  It made everything out of nothing.  As invisible and intangible  as "thingys" get, but yours is truly imaginary. You call it "science."

*Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago.  In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way.  This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude.   Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe.  This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth.  Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge. 

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong.   Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable."  This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance.  This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation.  The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein,  was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang.  Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental.    Genesis 1:1 was not.

Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today.  An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow.  This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.


----------



## ReinyDays

ChemEngineer said:


> "Reached their optimal performance." ...



I've never heard this argument ... and it's profoundly flawed ... if a plant evolves an insecticide, the insects quickly evolve a tolerance ... this is sometimes likened to an "arms race" ... as Thompson's gazelles get faster, so do cheetahs ... as oaks grow taller, so do maples ...

Evolution is a dynamic process ... the environment is always changing and organisms have to change with it or die out ... 

Welcome home, ChemEngineer ... just because I disagree with you on _everything_ doesn't mean I don't like you ...


----------



## LuckyDuck

ChemEngineer said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...

1.  You need to stop looking at species in terms of tens, hundreds or, thousands of years.  In the case of evolution, we're dealing with "gradual" changes in creatures over "millions" of years.  If in an experiment, you could have the son or daughter of two world class runners, mate with another world class runner...and so on....down the lineage, over time, there would be actual physical changes in subsequent generations bodies to be better modified to run faster than other humans.  Again, remember, we're not talking in the short term of hundreds of years.  Over at least tens of thousands of years, these descendants would start developing lower limbs that would have made them superior to other humans.  If one looks at how people migrated, at some point, Sherpas who live in higher elevations than your average human, have, over many generations, had physical changes that allow them to survive in those higher elevations, whereas your average individual couldn't handle this.  Another example are the Eskimos or Aleuts, that have various altered features that allow them to deal with the extreme, better than the peoples of warmer climates.  These peoples, over time, migrated to these areas and their bodies changed to adapt to the climate they settled in (although frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to settle in the Arctic Circle).
2.   The evolution of the horse has been studied very well.  At one time, it was short, squat and had toes, but over millennia, it grew larger, more sleek to allow for faster running and its feet fused to eventually become hooves, to allow for even faster running.  Whether you're talking sharks, squid, cheetahs, lions, horses, insects, or humans, a species will only change to the point at which it becomes most successful in its environment.  
3.   This penchant for the religious to say that, because we don't have "all" the answers, we must insert an invisible, all-knowing, all-seeing, can do everything, being(s) that did it all and watches over us...and...object to various well-founded "scientific" theories, based upon over a hundred years of studies, does a disservice to all who are actively trying to learn more of not just our ancestral heritage, but that of other creatures, large and small.  It simply comes from a place of ignorance and refusal to learn.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 (sic) , when the only rule or law that should be followed would be a simple "do no harm to others."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "rule or law" that you cite written?  Why haven't atheists such as Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao and Pol Pot followed it?  They've murdered many more millions and much more recently than the Christians on which you atheists are obsessed.
> 
> By the way, the plural of "millennium" is "millennia."  Spelling is *hard*.  You have an "invisible thingy."  It's called "a quantum vacuum."  It made everything out of nothing.  As invisible and intangible  as "thingys" get, but yours is truly imaginary. You call it "science."
> 
> *Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago.  In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way.  This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude.   Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe.  This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth.  Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> 
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong.   Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable."  This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance.  This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation.  The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein,  was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang.  Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental.    Genesis 1:1 was not.
> 
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today.  An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow.  This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.
Click to expand...

It's truly profoundly disturbing when religious extremists try to pass the Bibles off as science texts. 

Contrary to their pretensions, science advanced in spite of the church.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 (sic) , when the only rule or law that should be followed would be a simple "do no harm to others."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "rule or law" that you cite written?  Why haven't atheists such as Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao and Pol Pot followed it?  They've murdered many more millions and much more recently than the Christians on which you atheists are obsessed.
> 
> By the way, the plural of "millennium" is "millennia."  Spelling is *hard*.  You have an "invisible thingy."  It's called "a quantum vacuum."  It made everything out of nothing.  As invisible and intangible  as "thingys" get, but yours is truly imaginary. You call it "science."
> 
> *Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago.  In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate galaxy, apart from the Milky Way.  This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude.   Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe.  This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth.  Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> 
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong.   Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable."  This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance.  This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation.  The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein,  was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang.  Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental.    Genesis 1:1 was not.
> 
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today.  An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow.  This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie,”as Christians are so snidely denigrated by atheists), before anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's truly profoundly disturbing when religious extremists try to pass the Bibles off as science texts.
> 
> Contrary to their pretensions, science advanced in spite of the church.
Click to expand...

Yeah.  One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe."  Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives.  Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.


----------



## ChemEngineer

LuckyDuck said:


> Yeah.  One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe."  Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives.  Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.



You're right up to the minute citing Galileo, aren't you!  By golly millions killed and all Galileo's fault.
Joseph Stalin is considerably more recent than Galileo, but you don't want to talk about murderous atheists like Stalin and the even more murderous Chairman Mao, fascists both.  Fascism is thoroughly Leftist.  Read Liberal Fascism, if you're man enough.  I'll pay for your copy, with U.S. currency that reads *"IN GOD WE TRUST"* ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe."  Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives.  Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right up to the minute citing Galileo, aren't you!  By golly millions killed and all Galileo's fault.
> Joseph Stalin is considerably more recent than Galileo, but you don't want to talk about murderous atheists like Stalin and the even more murderous Chairman Mao, fascists both.  Fascism is thoroughly Leftist.  Read Liberal Fascism, if your man enough.  I'll pay for your copy, with U.S. currency that reads *"IN GOD WE TRUST"* ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha
Click to expand...

The flaw with that tirade about Atheists is with not understanding that Atheism is a byproduct of the political ideology of communism / Stalinism. By golly, Stalin, Mao and those like them were sociopaths who used a political ideology as a vehicle for their mental illness.

"We" don't trust in gods. You gawd awful Christian folks have done enough harm to humanity in the name of your religion.


----------



## ReinyDays

Is human violence against one another by any other cause more just? ...


----------



## Newtonian

Indeed ,


ChemEngineer said:


> *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.



Indeed, fraud of evolutionists includes lack of doing the math - excellent point.

Another ball park estimate:

1.  10^79 amu mass of visible universe (Eddington's  old estimate) (atomic mass units) [compare to your 10^80 estimate].

2.  Fastest possible chemical reaction time - much less that 10^24 per second (derived from the time is takes light to traverse the nucleus of an atom) [compare to your 10^43 units of Planck time]

3.  Age of universe in seconds.  Based on a 14 billion year age of universe = 1.4 x 10^10.  Times the number of seconds in a year [60 per minute; 60 minutes per hour; 24 hours per day; 365 days per year = 60x60x24x365 = 31,536,000 seconds in a year - please check my math.
rounding up to 100 million = <10^8 seconds per year, 10^18 seconds since universe began x 10^24 chemical reactions per second = 10^42 chemical reactions in our universe since our universe began.

So, the highest possible number of chemical reactions in our universe since our universe began is much less than 10^42 chemical reactions times c. 10^79 atoms (most atoms are more massive than 1 amu) yields <10^121 chemical reactions in our universe since our universe began.

Most estimates of probability of statistical (not informational) protein synthesis are based required organic soup + required atmosphere and only a few factors in steps from the fictional soup to proteins.   Estimates vary wildly because some estimates are based on only a few (or even only one like chirality) so you will get low estimates like 10^21 and higher estimates taking more factors into consideration - as in your 10^150 quoted estimate.  

I will detail this later, but the larger the universe, or the number of universes, does not change the rate of statistical protein synthesis per 10^79 amu sector.   The problem of one protein synthesized in Andromeda galaxy meeting up with one  protein synthesized in Milky Way 10,000 years earlier (or later) is always ignored by chemical evolutionists - but these two proteins have to be in the same place at the same time to produce the simplest possible protein chain of only 2 proteins!

Also, the law of large numbers is often ignored by chemical evolutionists.   The larger the universe, or number of universes, the larger the number of trials.  And the larger the number of trials the less the standard deviation from predicted probability.  

This is especially true when multiple interdependent steps are involved - like the need for steps from HCN to any specific amino acid.   The larger the number of steps also increases the strength of the law of large numbers.

In fact, this is why the results of chemical reactions are  predictable - a very large number of atoms are involved.


----------



## Newtonian

Chem: Wow!   Just browsing thread posts I find most ignore your math, and those posting on probability and statistics have ignored the multiple steps involved including the law of large numbers.

And the rate of synthesis per mass is also ignored -  e.g. the rate in units of time per galaxy.

Has anyone addressed the fact that the universe is not made up of an organic soup that would allow for amino acid synthesis much less protein synthesis?   E.g. even the simplest organic molecules required cannot exist within stars.

Has anyone addressed the geological (and chemical) evidence that the proposed mythical organic soup never existed on planet earth?   Or has anyone found evidence that such an organic soup ever existed on any 'earthlike' planet?


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Chem: Wow!   Just browsing thread posts I find most ignore your math, and those posting on probability and statistics have ignored the multiple steps involved including the law of large numbers.
> 
> And the rate of synthesis per mass is also ignored -  e.g. the rate in units of time per galaxy.
> 
> Has anyone addressed the fact that the universe is not made up of an organic soup that would allow for amino acid synthesis much less protein synthesis?   E.g. even the simplest organic molecules required cannot exist within stars.
> 
> Has anyone addressed the geological (and chemical) evidence that the proposed mythical organic soup never existed on planet earth?   Or has anyone found evidence that such an organic soup ever existed on any 'earthlike' planet?


The obvious flaw with creationist / supernaturalist claim “the odds are too great” is that the stereotypical creationist argument relies on math they don't understand and biology they find on religious extremist websites. 

Firstly, the silly chemical religionist “calculation of odds” assumes that the biological conditions 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 chemical religionist ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously,_

As we see consistently, the religious extremists are unable to make any affirmative case for their gods and so are left to attack science with meaningless "what are the odds", memes that ignore some very basic elements of biology.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe."  Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives.  Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right up to the minute citing Galileo, aren't you!  By golly millions killed and all Galileo's fault.
> Joseph Stalin is considerably more recent than Galileo, but you don't want to talk about murderous atheists like Stalin and the even more murderous Chairman Mao, fascists both.  Fascism is thoroughly Leftist.  Read Liberal Fascism, if you're man enough.  I'll pay for your copy, with U.S. currency that reads *"IN GOD WE TRUST"* ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha
Click to expand...

Religious extremists fail to understand that the slogan "in god we trust" was a disassembly of the separation of church and state under Eisenhower in the 1950's during the cold war.  The Founding Fathers motto of "E Pluribus Unum" was changed to "In God We Trust" and placing "Under God" in the pledge-- both done in the 1950's and contrary to the principle of separation of church and state. 

ha ha ha ha ha ha.


----------



## Newtonian

ReinyDays said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...
> 
> It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme *at least once* approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, *once is enough *... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four *at least once* in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...
> 
> Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...
Click to expand...


rainy days - Thank you for commenting specifically on the math involved.   Everyone, including you, oversimplifies the formation of an enzyme.   That's because there are too many variable factors - I will start with just one for now:

1.   A primordial soup.    Most calculations of probability involve the likelihood of a primordial soup capable of synthesizing the 20 amino acids required for life.   Chemical evolutionists usually deceive the public in that they fail to note that different environments are required for the synthesis of specific amino acids.   And even in any one theorized environment postulated by evolutionists the probability of certain amino acids are far lower than other amino acids.   The law of large numbers is why the proportions of the chemical reaction products is predictable and proven by repeated experiments.

The different environments cannot exist at the same time and same place - see my amino acid synthesis thread for more detail - but the main point is that some amino acids require wet while others require dry - some even with condensing agents.   Ditto cold vs. hot and acid vs base (alkaline).

For example, in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, reports of the results are filled with fraud as per thread title.   Very few sources give the chemical reaction product proportion results in their simulated environment which included Methane (CH4); ammonia (NH3); hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) and spark discharge (simulating lightning).

I have posted the following chemical reaction product proportion list with formic acid, the predominant product synthesized by Miller as the basis for proportion comparison (i.e. formic acid is proportion 1000).   Note that the list would be meaningless if the law of large numbers was not involved - otherwise the results would be wildly variant and any one synthesis experiment would have unpredictable product proportions, but at least scientists admit that the proportions are predicable.   Here is the list:

(After S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.) Biologically relevant amino acids an> written in italics. •Yields are relative to formic acid and presented in descending order. 
Formic acid - 1000
Glycine - 270
Glycolic acid - 240
Alanine - 146
133 64 64 56 24 21 21 21 17
 Lactic acid - 133
 beta-Alanine - 64 
Acetic acid - 64
Propionic acid - 56
Iminodiacetic acid - 24
Sarcosine - 21
 a·Amino-n-butyric acid - 21
a-Hydroxybutyric acid - 21
Succinic acid - 17
Urea - 17
Iminoaceticpropionic acid - 9
N-Methyl urea - 6
N-Methylalanine - 6
Glutamic acid - 4
Aspartic acid - 3.2
a·Aminoisobutyric acid - 0.4

So, how many of you are actually willing to compare this proportion list with the actual amino acids in proteins?   Time will tell - take your time you all.

And have any of you found a scientific journal (or paper, etc.) that actually gives the chemical reaction product proportion list in the famous Miller-Urey experiment - i.e. any science source not guilty of this cover-up fraud?


----------



## Newtonian

To help you all, see this list of the 20 amino acids in proteins which specifies the variant properties that is why different environments are needed for their synthesis:






						Amino Acids Reference Chart
					

Amino acid reference chart contains the twenty amino acids found in eukaryotes, grouped according to their side chains and charge.  Discover our full product line of amino acids, including Alanine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Valine, Phenylalanine, Tryptophan, Tyrosine, Aspargine, Cysteine, Glutamine...




					www.sigmaaldrich.com


----------



## Newtonian

OK, I know I posted this list on this thread - not sure why I can't find it - but here is the list of the 20 amino acids in proteins again:

1. alanine - ala - A
2. arginine - arg - R
3. asparagine - asn - N
4. aspartic acid - asp - D
5. cysteine - cys - C
6. glutamine - gln - Q
7. glutamic acid - glu - E
8. glycine - gly - G
9. histidine - his - H
10. isoleucine - ile - I
11. leucine - leu - L
12. lysine - lys - K
13. methionine - met - M
14. phenylalanine - phe - F
15. proline - pro - P
16. serine - ser - S
17. threonine - thr - T
18. tryptophan - trp - W
19. tyrosine - tyr - Y
20. valine - val - V


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...
> 
> It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme *at least once* approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, *once is enough *... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four *at least once* in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...
> 
> Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rainy days - Thank you for commenting specifically on the math involved.   Everyone, including you, oversimplifies the formation of an enzyme.   That's because there are too many variable factors - I will start with just one for now:
> 
> 1.   A primordial soup.    Most calculations of probability involve the likelihood of a primordial soup capable of synthesizing the 20 amino acids required for life.   Chemical evolutionists usually deceive the public in that they fail to note that different environments are required for the synthesis of specific amino acids.   And even in any one theorized environment postulated by evolutionists the probability of certain amino acids are far lower than other amino acids.   The law of large numbers is why the proportions of the chemical reaction products is predictable and proven by repeated experiments.
> 
> The different environments cannot exist at the same time and same place - see my amino acid synthesis thread for more detail - but the main point is that some amino acids require wet while others require dry - some even with condensing agents.   Ditto cold vs. hot and acid vs base (alkaline).
> 
> For example, in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, reports of the results are filled with fraud as per thread title.   Very few sources give the chemical reaction product proportion results in their simulated environment which included Methane (CH4); ammonia (NH3); hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) and spark discharge (simulating lightning).
> 
> I have posted the following chemical reaction product proportion list with formic acid, the predominant product synthesized by Miller as the basis for proportion comparison (i.e. formic acid is proportion 1000).   Note that the list would be meaningless if the law of large numbers was not involved - otherwise the results would be wildly variant and any one synthesis experiment would have unpredictable product proportions, but at least scientists admit that the proportions are predicable.   Here is the list:
> 
> (After S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.) Biologically relevant amino acids an> written in italics. •Yields are relative to formic acid and presented in descending order.
> Formic acid - 1000
> Glycine - 270
> Glycolic acid - 240
> Alanine - 146
> 133 64 64 56 24 21 21 21 17
> Lactic acid - 133
> beta-Alanine - 64
> Acetic acid - 64
> Propionic acid - 56
> Iminodiacetic acid - 24
> Sarcosine - 21
> a·Amino-n-butyric acid - 21
> a-Hydroxybutyric acid - 21
> Succinic acid - 17
> Urea - 17
> Iminoaceticpropionic acid - 9
> N-Methyl urea - 6
> N-Methylalanine - 6
> Glutamic acid - 4
> Aspartic acid - 3.2
> a·Aminoisobutyric acid - 0.4
> 
> So, how many of you are actually willing to compare this proportion list with the actual amino acids in proteins?   Time will tell - take your time you all.
> 
> And have any of you found a scientific journal (or paper, etc.) that actually gives the chemical reaction product proportion list in the famous Miller-Urey experiment - i.e. any science source not guilty of this cover-up fraud?
Click to expand...

I think the problem religious supernaturalists have with understanding biology and the origins of life is that their arguments come from religious extremist websites that have an obvious agenda to denigrate science. I note that exclusively, the extremists make no positive argument in favor of their respective gods but resort to the stereotypical “amino acids” and “primordial soup” argument which is standard creationist behavior.

Note that the Watchtower Bible Tract” (JW’s), are notorious for the spread of misinformation regarding evolution and biology.





__





						CB010.2:  Origin of the first cells
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				




*Claim CB010.2:*
The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)

*Source:*
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.

Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.
*Response:*

Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.


Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).


This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:

Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
Something that no one has thought of yet.

*Links:*
Robinson, Richard. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks.  _PLoS Biology_ 3(11): e396.http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396


----------



## Newtonian

Weatherman2020 said:


> Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.



So true!   And the fact is that if you do get a peptide and you wait, the peptide will degrade via entropy. Not to mention the degradation of informational molecules including the process of death of life.   It doesn't go the other way without an intelligent chemist superior to human chemists.


----------



## ReinyDays

Thank you Hollie ... a far better explanation than I could ever come up with ... 

The creations are asking something akin to when JFK stated in 1961 he wanted us on the Moon, why didn't we have the Space Shuttle up and running in 1962? ... what they're asking here is how a 5,000 unit poly-peptide could form from basic hydrates ... 

No, we don't have our self-catalyzing molecule in hand, but it's up to creationists to prove it can't exist ... so far they've failed ... and continue to buy food at their local grocery store ...


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true!   And the fact is that if you do get a peptide and you wait, the peptide will degrade via entropy. Not to mention the degradation of informational molecules including the process of death of life.   It doesn't go the other way without an intelligent chemist superior to human chemists.
Click to expand...

One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion with biological evolution and "abiogenesis," roughly equivalent to the origin of life. It is quite simple to point out that evolutionary biology is the study of life, and not the origin of life. And, there is no particular reason that evolutionary theory need be concerned with the origin of life.

Claims to a supernatural chemist are rather pointless when the supernaturalists can offer no rational argument for such a supernatural chemist. 

So, the molecules of life were known to be quite ordinary matter. Astronomers discovered that not only were these carbon compounds common throughout the solar system, they are common through out the universe.

The discussion of the earliest molecular catalysis, peptides, genetic material, and (don't forget) lipid membranes, goes far beyond what the supernaturalist creationists can attribute to their supernatural creator chemists but I can point out that nothing in chemistry has ever been shown to have supernatural / magical elements.


----------



## Newtonian

Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...
> 
> It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme *at least once* approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, *once is enough *... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four *at least once* in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...
> 
> Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rainy days - Thank you for commenting specifically on the math involved.   Everyone, including you, oversimplifies the formation of an enzyme.   That's because there are too many variable factors - I will start with just one for now:
> 
> 1.   A primordial soup.    Most calculations of probability involve the likelihood of a primordial soup capable of synthesizing the 20 amino acids required for life.   Chemical evolutionists usually deceive the public in that they fail to note that different environments are required for the synthesis of specific amino acids.   And even in any one theorized environment postulated by evolutionists the probability of certain amino acids are far lower than other amino acids.   The law of large numbers is why the proportions of the chemical reaction products is predictable and proven by repeated experiments.
> 
> The different environments cannot exist at the same time and same place - see my amino acid synthesis thread for more detail - but the main point is that some amino acids require wet while others require dry - some even with condensing agents.   Ditto cold vs. hot and acid vs base (alkaline).
> 
> For example, in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, reports of the results are filled with fraud as per thread title.   Very few sources give the chemical reaction product proportion results in their simulated environment which included Methane (CH4); ammonia (NH3); hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) and spark discharge (simulating lightning).
> 
> I have posted the following chemical reaction product proportion list with formic acid, the predominant product synthesized by Miller as the basis for proportion comparison (i.e. formic acid is proportion 1000).   Note that the list would be meaningless if the law of large numbers was not involved - otherwise the results would be wildly variant and any one synthesis experiment would have unpredictable product proportions, but at least scientists admit that the proportions are predicable.   Here is the list:
> 
> (After S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.) Biologically relevant amino acids an> written in italics. •Yields are relative to formic acid and presented in descending order.
> Formic acid - 1000
> Glycine - 270
> Glycolic acid - 240
> Alanine - 146
> 133 64 64 56 24 21 21 21 17
> Lactic acid - 133
> beta-Alanine - 64
> Acetic acid - 64
> Propionic acid - 56
> Iminodiacetic acid - 24
> Sarcosine - 21
> a·Amino-n-butyric acid - 21
> a-Hydroxybutyric acid - 21
> Succinic acid - 17
> Urea - 17
> Iminoaceticpropionic acid - 9
> N-Methyl urea - 6
> N-Methylalanine - 6
> Glutamic acid - 4
> Aspartic acid - 3.2
> a·Aminoisobutyric acid - 0.4
> 
> So, how many of you are actually willing to compare this proportion list with the actual amino acids in proteins?   Time will tell - take your time you all.
> 
> And have any of you found a scientific journal (or paper, etc.) that actually gives the chemical reaction product proportion list in the famous Miller-Urey experiment - i.e. any science source not guilty of this cover-up fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the problem religious supernaturalists have with understanding biology and the origins of life is that their arguments come from religious extremist websites that have an obvious agenda to denigrate science. I note that exclusively, the extremists make no positive argument in favor of their respective gods but resort to the stereotypical “amino acids” and “primordial soup” argument which is standard creationist behavior.
> 
> Note that the Watchtower Bible Tract” (JW’s), are notorious for the spread of misinformation regarding evolution and biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB010.2:  Origin of the first cells
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Claim CB010.2:*
> The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)
> 
> *Source:*
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.
> 
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.
> *Response:*
> 
> Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
> 
> 
> Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
> 
> 
> This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
> Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
> Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
> Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
> Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
> The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
> Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
> Something that no one has thought of yet.
> 
> *Links:*
> Robinson, Richard. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks.  _PLoS Biology_ 3(11): e396.http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396
Click to expand...

Wow Hollie!  You actually have scientific content I can respond to in a scientific manner relevant to thread theme.   Thank you for the cut and paste - though I thought you didn't like cutting and pasting?   And thank you for quoting our literature - another thing I thought you didn't like!   Granted, you are misrepresenting our literature which is likely why you linked to an anti-JW website when our literature can be found in context on our website.  I should also thank you for posting an example of evolutionist fraud ironically accusing us of being inaccurate!

So where do you want me to start?  How about concerning the iron-sulphur 'world'/environment not used by most chemical evolutionists in their synthesis experiments?

But first, since you have cut and pasted a source which misrepresents our literature, I should post what our literature says about abiogenesis specifically of the simplest possible living cell.   Your link quotes our 1985 book but does not  state a link to it so the reader can see the context.   Here is the link, first to the 35 year old book (is it out of date?):






						Creation  (ce) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




Note that we update our literature as further research demands it - just as in the case of scientific literature (like the postulated early earth atmosphere at the origin of life).   Noteworthy is the fact that your source does not reference our updated 1998 book on the same subject here:






						Creator  (ct) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




Nor our even more up-to-date 2010 brochures on the origin of life here:






						Origin of Life  (lf) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




and:






						Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




In my next post I will address the specific quote your source says is in error - meanwhile, why not actually read the context and our updates?


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nuts ... 1 in 10 to the 150th power isn't anywhere close to zero ... for a chemical engineer, you sure have an odd sense of what is small ... yeesh ... and your artistic talents come in short ... you're asking the wrong question ...
> 
> It doesn't matter how small the odds are of an enzyme forming in any given Planck Time Unit (PTU) ... given enough PTU's, the formation of this enzyme *at least once* approaches certainty, and we certainly have enough PTU's ... and thus our basic assumption, *once is enough *... for example: the odds of rolling a four with a die is 1 in 6 ... but what are the odds of rolling a four *at least once* in a billion rolls ... not certainty, but close ... or a better example, a kilogram of methane in a vessel at 1 atmosphere pressure and 100ºC, what are the odds of absolutely NO ethane forming? ...
> 
> Now do your mathing again, this time instead of a 34,350 amino acid protein, only use the 21 enzymes needed to form this protein, the same enzymes to form any protein ... you're a chemical engineer, you should know this ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rainy days - Thank you for commenting specifically on the math involved.   Everyone, including you, oversimplifies the formation of an enzyme.   That's because there are too many variable factors - I will start with just one for now:
> 
> 1.   A primordial soup.    Most calculations of probability involve the likelihood of a primordial soup capable of synthesizing the 20 amino acids required for life.   Chemical evolutionists usually deceive the public in that they fail to note that different environments are required for the synthesis of specific amino acids.   And even in any one theorized environment postulated by evolutionists the probability of certain amino acids are far lower than other amino acids.   The law of large numbers is why the proportions of the chemical reaction products is predictable and proven by repeated experiments.
> 
> The different environments cannot exist at the same time and same place - see my amino acid synthesis thread for more detail - but the main point is that some amino acids require wet while others require dry - some even with condensing agents.   Ditto cold vs. hot and acid vs base (alkaline).
> 
> For example, in the famous Miller-Urey experiment, reports of the results are filled with fraud as per thread title.   Very few sources give the chemical reaction product proportion results in their simulated environment which included Methane (CH4); ammonia (NH3); hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) and spark discharge (simulating lightning).
> 
> I have posted the following chemical reaction product proportion list with formic acid, the predominant product synthesized by Miller as the basis for proportion comparison (i.e. formic acid is proportion 1000).   Note that the list would be meaningless if the law of large numbers was not involved - otherwise the results would be wildly variant and any one synthesis experiment would have unpredictable product proportions, but at least scientists admit that the proportions are predicable.   Here is the list:
> 
> (After S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.) Biologically relevant amino acids an> written in italics. •Yields are relative to formic acid and presented in descending order.
> Formic acid - 1000
> Glycine - 270
> Glycolic acid - 240
> Alanine - 146
> 133 64 64 56 24 21 21 21 17
> Lactic acid - 133
> beta-Alanine - 64
> Acetic acid - 64
> Propionic acid - 56
> Iminodiacetic acid - 24
> Sarcosine - 21
> a·Amino-n-butyric acid - 21
> a-Hydroxybutyric acid - 21
> Succinic acid - 17
> Urea - 17
> Iminoaceticpropionic acid - 9
> N-Methyl urea - 6
> N-Methylalanine - 6
> Glutamic acid - 4
> Aspartic acid - 3.2
> a·Aminoisobutyric acid - 0.4
> 
> So, how many of you are actually willing to compare this proportion list with the actual amino acids in proteins?   Time will tell - take your time you all.
> 
> And have any of you found a scientific journal (or paper, etc.) that actually gives the chemical reaction product proportion list in the famous Miller-Urey experiment - i.e. any science source not guilty of this cover-up fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the problem religious supernaturalists have with understanding biology and the origins of life is that their arguments come from religious extremist websites that have an obvious agenda to denigrate science. I note that exclusively, the extremists make no positive argument in favor of their respective gods but resort to the stereotypical “amino acids” and “primordial soup” argument which is standard creationist behavior.
> 
> Note that the Watchtower Bible Tract” (JW’s), are notorious for the spread of misinformation regarding evolution and biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB010.2:  Origin of the first cells
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talkorigins.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Claim CB010.2:*
> The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)
> 
> *Source:*
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.
> 
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.
> *Response:*
> 
> Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
> 
> 
> Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
> 
> 
> This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
> Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
> Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
> Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
> Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
> The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
> Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
> Something that no one has thought of yet.
> 
> *Links:*
> Robinson, Richard. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks.  _PLoS Biology_ 3(11): e396.http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow Hollie!  You actually have scientific content I can respond to in a scientific manner relevant to thread theme.   Thank you for the cut and paste - though I thought you didn't like cutting and pasting?   And thank you for quoting our literature - another thing I thought you didn't like!   Granted, you are misrepresenting our literature which is likely why you linked to an anti-JW website when our literature can be found in context on our website.  I should also thank you for posting an example of evolutionist fraud ironically accusing us of being inaccurate!
> 
> So where do you want me to start?  How about concerning the iron-sulphur 'world'/environment not used by most chemical evolutionists in their synthesis experiments?
> 
> But first, since you have cut and pasted a source which misrepresents our literature, I should post what our literature says about abiogenesis specifically of the simplest possible living cell.   Your link quotes our 1985 book but does not  state a link to it so the reader can see the context.   Here is the link, first to the 35 year old book (is it out of date?):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation  (ce) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that we update our literature as further research demands it - just as in the case of scientific literature (like the postulated early earth atmosphere at the origin of life).   Noteworthy is the fact that your source does not reference our updated 1998 book on the same subject here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creator  (ct) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor our even more up-to-date 2010 brochures on the origin of life here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Origin of Life  (lf) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publications — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my next post I will address the specific quote your source says is in error - meanwhile, why not actually read the context and our updates?
Click to expand...

I will be glad to discuss science matters but would request that you use verifiable science sources to frame your arguments. The creationist agenda of using sources derived from creationist websites assumes you have a bias. That bias is openly acknowledged within a "statement of faith" that is common among the creation ministries.

Your sources above being a creation ministry literally requires your content meet a predefined agenda. Multiple links to Watchtower Bible Tract literature serves what purpose? I understand the JWs are among the most aggressive and heavy handed at proselytizing, but biological evolution is a science matter not a religious one.

As you claim above that the Watchtower literature is updated as research demands it, please identify what research the JW's actually perform. Be specific and identify the lab work, papers published, authors of those papers and the science journals they submitted to. Is there any science body that uses JW research material in peer reviewed journals?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true!   And the fact is that if you do get a peptide and you wait, the peptide will degrade via entropy. Not to mention the degradation of informational molecules including the process of death of life.   It doesn't go the other way without an intelligent chemist superior to human chemists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion with biological evolution and "abiogenesis," roughly equivalent to the origin of life. It is quite simple to point out that evolutionary biology is the study of life, and not the origin of life. And, there is no particular reason that evolutionary theory need be concerned with the origin of life.
> 
> Claims to a supernatural chemist are rather pointless when the supernaturalists can offer no rational argument for such a supernatural chemist.
> 
> So, the molecules of life were known to be quite ordinary matter. Astronomers discovered that not only were these carbon compounds common throughout the solar system, they are common through out the universe.
> 
> The discussion of the earliest molecular catalysis, peptides, genetic material, and (don't forget) lipid membranes, goes far beyond what the supernaturalist creationists can attribute to their supernatural creator chemists but I can point out that nothing in chemistry has ever been shown to have supernatural / magical elements.
Click to expand...

Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator. 
To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks and whatever elements you wish to add from the Periodic Table will not eventually write a Concerto, no matter how long you wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true!   And the fact is that if you do get a peptide and you wait, the peptide will degrade via entropy. Not to mention the degradation of informational molecules including the process of death of life.   It doesn't go the other way without an intelligent chemist superior to human chemists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion with biological evolution and "abiogenesis," roughly equivalent to the origin of life. It is quite simple to point out that evolutionary biology is the study of life, and not the origin of life. And, there is no particular reason that evolutionary theory need be concerned with the origin of life.
> 
> Claims to a supernatural chemist are rather pointless when the supernaturalists can offer no rational argument for such a supernatural chemist.
> 
> So, the molecules of life were known to be quite ordinary matter. Astronomers discovered that not only were these carbon compounds common throughout the solar system, they are common through out the universe.
> 
> The discussion of the earliest molecular catalysis, peptides, genetic material, and (don't forget) lipid membranes, goes far beyond what the supernaturalist creationists can attribute to their supernatural creator chemists but I can point out that nothing in chemistry has ever been shown to have supernatural / magical elements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
> To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.
Click to expand...

There are many plausible theories, supported with varying amounts of verifiable data that support a fully natural, rational explanation for the emergence of life on the planet. Biological evolution after the emergence of life is not in question among the relevant science community with supported data. 

Please identity a plausible theory for supernatural creation. Please identify a plausible theory for your gods as opposed to theories proposed by others for their gods. 

Something like a "General Theory of Supernatural Creation" would be helpful.


----------



## Newtonian

Ok, Hollie - here is the context of the misquote of our 1985 book (not just page 44 but also pp. 45-49 on the same subject:






						Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




Your source claims p. 44 has these words:
"The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance."

Those words are not found on p. 44 which you would  have known if you hadn't simply cut and pasted this example of fraud by evolutionists - in this case anti-JW evolutionists.

What does page 44 actually say?

"18. How realistic are the odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance?

18 The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!

19. What chance is there of getting the needed enzymes for a living cell?

19 Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”⁠13

20. Why does the membrane needed by the cell add to the problem?

20 However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”⁠14"

References:

12. _The Origin of Life, _by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144.
13. _Evolution From Space,by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981 , _p. 24.
14. _New Scientist, _“Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.
15. _Evolution From Space, _p. 27.

Guess why we only quote sources from prior to 1985!   And please note that there are many probability (technically correct term for "chance") calculations factoring in more or less steps required for the amino acids in a protein.   The simplest result, printed in our more recent literature is: 10^21.

So one could say our literature says the probability is 10^21  or 10*113 or 10^40,000 - all of this would be correct but missing the detailed source of those numbers,   Interesting that your source does not even dare to print any probability calculation or result.

I'll give you time to actually read our more  up-to-date literature which quotes more recent scientific sources - if you dare!   I posted the links above, btw.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Ok, Hollie - here is the context of the misquote of our 1985 book (not just page 44 but also pp. 45-49 on the same subject:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your source claims p. 44 has these words:
> "The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance."
> 
> Those words are not found on p. 44 which you would  have known if you hadn't simply cut and pasted this example of fraud by evolutionists - in this case anti-JW evolutionists.
> 
> What does page 44 actually say?
> 
> "18. How realistic are the odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance?
> 
> 18 The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!
> 
> 19. What chance is there of getting the needed enzymes for a living cell?
> 
> 19 Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”⁠13
> 
> 20. Why does the membrane needed by the cell add to the problem?
> 
> 20 However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”⁠14"
> 
> References:
> 
> 12. _The Origin of Life, _by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144.
> 13. _Evolution From Space,by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981 , _p. 24.
> 14. _New Scientist, _“Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.
> 15. _Evolution From Space, _p. 27.
> 
> Guess why we only quote sources from prior to 1985!   And please note that there are many probability (technically correct term for "chance") calculations factoring in more or less steps required for the amino acids in a protein.   The simplest result, printed in our more recent literature is: 10^21.
> 
> So one could say our literature says the probability is 10^21  or 10*113 or 10^40,000 - all of this would be correct but missing the detailed source of those numbers,   Interesting that your source does not even dare to print any probability calculation or result.
> 
> I'll give you time to actually read our more  up-to-date literature which quotes more recent scientific sources - if you dare!   I posted the links above, btw.


I saw no date that supported your claim that there was any misquote.

So, we're still left with the usual creationist claims that "the odds are too great" when the creationist ministries offer nothing to support that claim. Can you provide some evidence of the JW's research that supports a claim of "the odds are too great" is supportable in the context of literally billions of chemical interactions over the course of millions of years?

*Claim CB040:*
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.



			CB040:  Left-handed amino acids
		


*Source:*
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
*Response:*

The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).


Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.


The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.


Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
*Links:*
Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. _Chemical and Engineering News_ 81(32): 5. C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - SERINE FLAVORS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP

*References:*

Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. _Journal of Molecular Evolution_ 53: 555-595.
Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. _Advances in Space Research_ 23(2): 293-299.
Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. _Nature_ 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed Solar System? _Nature_ 389: 234-235.
McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. _Science_ 281: 231-234.
Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. _Science_ 303: 1151.
Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltani and M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. _Nature_ 409: 797-801.
Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? _Science_ 286: 1282-1283.
Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. _Angewandte Chemie International Edition_ 42: 3521-3523.
TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. News and Events  | Scripps Research
Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. _Science_ 295: 1266-1269.


----------



## Hollie

While we're waiting, I'm hoping we can get a response to an earlier request to identify the research being undertaken by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. It would be helpful to know what research and teaching universities are sponsoring their research.

Are there any articles published in the journal _Nature_, for example, that have presented works by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?


----------



## Hollie

_Life: How did it get here? By evolution or creation?_
Reviewed by a former Jehovah's Witness
Corey Carroll





__





						Review of JW book, _Life_, by a former Witness
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				









_Life: How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?_ Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Copyright 1985. Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.

First, some background: The Jehovah's Witnesses are basically old-earth creationists; that is, they interpret "day" in Genesis to mean a time period longer than 24 hours. Second, this book is the primary book the JW's use in their campaign to fight evolution. Third, the JW's don't get politically involved in things, so it is unlikely that they will pressure the teaching of "scientific creationism" in schools.

This is the book that really changed my faith in the Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion who have the "Truth". Earlier, about 5 years ago, I and my family had studied this book in weekly bookstudies, held at believer's houses. Each study lasted an hour, and usually 10 or 12 paragraphs were covered in each study.

This was the book that made me a firm creationist. Until I started reading talk.origins.

The book is divided into two main parts. The first part details the standard 'problems with evolution' arguments, in an attempt to prove creationism (something which is logically invalid). The last part of the book reveals the true motives behind the book. Look at what the last chapter, "What Choice Will You Make?", on page 248, paragraph 5 has to say:





> Do not be surprised that the theory of evolution has become so widespread in modern times despite the evidence against it. The real message of this belief is that there is no God, that he is unnecessary. From where would such a monumental lie originate? Jesus identified the source when he said: "The Devil... is a liar and the father of the lie."-John 8:44.


Thus, the motives of the book are to show that basically, evolution is a Satanic theory. My own father has used this tactic on me, telling me that I have been "tricked" by Satan and his demons, and the demonic influence of college, talk.origins, and all other sources of evolutionary knowledge. He has even quoted scriptures to me such as Colossians 2:8, Matthew 11:25, 1 Corinthians 1:19, Isaiah 29:14, and 1 Corinthians 3:19.

At first glance, you can see that the book is lacking in informational content. It is written on an 8th grade level. Over half of the book is devoted to pretty color pictures, as opposed to words. Little quotes are cited on the margins of the pages, such as : "The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones" (p.85), and "Why did 'inferior' apes and monkeys survive, but not a single 'superior' 'ape-man'?" (p.84)

The pictures of life on earth are depicted as noble, wonderful, God-like. Look at the pictures of humans. A particularly humorous picture is the one on page 33, showing the animals that were created on day 6, supposedly exactly the same as the 'kinds' today (they have a modern-day elephant, giraffe, bear, dog, tiger, rabbit, and a cow). Another humorous picture is on p.34, with a depiction of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Note the makeup on Eve. I guess God created her with lipstick and eyeliner, eh?

The 'meat' of the book is laregly contained in the following chapters:


2. Disagreements About Evolution - Why?
4. Could Life Originate by Chance?
5. Letting the Fossil Record Speak
6. Huge Gulfs - Can Evolution Bridge Them?
7. "Ape-Men" - What Were They?
8. Mutations - A Basis for Evolution?
Chapter 1, "Life - How Did it Start?" is just introductory and contains little useful information. After acknowledging that creationism isn't really a science, however, it tries to prove that evolution is not a science either, because no one can "really tell" what happened in the past. Nothing original here.

Chapter 2 is particularly notorious in its misleading use of quotes. By selective quoting, the chapter makes it appear as if evolution is a science on the verge of collapse. This sets up the rest of the arguments in the book to disprove evolution. Most of the quotes only are dealing with questions on _how_ evolution happened, and the tempo and mode of evolution, _not_ the fact of evolution happening.

Chapter 3, "What Does Geneis Say?", is especially funny. Apparently it is their "Scientific Theory of Creationism". Notable in this theory is that they do not claim that all life was created in six literal 24-hour days. Rather, they claim that each Genesis "day" could have encompassed millenia. However, I have heard some Witnesses say that the dinosaurs were killed off in the flood, and Jehovah started getting the earth ready for life a mere 48,000 years ago (implying that all life has been created within 48,000 years), due to their interpretation of a Biblical "day" as 7,000 years. However, they believe that man is only 6,000 years old.

Chapter 4, "Could Life Originate By Chance?" contains the usual probability arguments against abiogenesis. After making it look like evolution depends upon a theory of biogenesis to make it complete (which it does not), it quotes Hoyle's _Evolution From Space_ and even an _Impact_ pamphlet for its probabilities. The arguments in this book are based on the assumption that for life to have started would require a modern-day cell with DNA, proteins, enzymes, etc. No thought is given to the evolution of the cell from simpler elements.

Chapter 5, "Letting the Fossil Record Speak", asserts that evolution predicts:


Very simple life forms gradually appearing
Simple forms gradually changing into complex ones
Many transitional "links" between different kinds
Beginnings of new body features, such as limbs, bones, and organs.
After oversimplifying matters, and neglecting the facts regarding the likelihood of fossilization, they set out to make it look like no transitional forms exist. Notoriously, they attack the evolution of the horse, on bad assumptions that horse evolution is gradual and continuous, is progressive, and leads from the changing and replacement of one "kind" of animal to another (_Eohippus_ to _Equus_).
Chapter 6, "Huge Gulfs - Can Evolution Bridge Them?" expounds upon the differences in vertebrates, namely, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. It is an example of the "we don't understand how a [wing, beak, eggshell] could have developed, therefore it didn't happen" argument. In particular, they claim that _Archaeopteryx_ is not a transition from reptile to bird, because it has feathers, and not scales. They fail to note the reptile-like skeletal features of _Archaeopteryx_, of course, because it is contrary evidence that they do not want to deal with.

Chapter 7, "'Ape-Men' - What Were They?" sets about to prove that none of the early hominids were transitional or ancestral to Homo sapiens. It harps on Piltdown man, and the speculative nature of different artist's representations of ancient skulls in real life, while ignoring the trends in enlargement of brain case, changes in teeth, and the changes in the shape of the face. Notable, too, is the drawing on page 94 of the _Australopithecus_ skull, chimpanzee skull, and the human skull. IMHO, the chimpanzee skull is not drawn accurately; where are the large pointed teeth?

Also, it tries to discredit radiocarbon dating that gives ages greater than 6,000 years to man, using the views of Robert Gentry, a six-day creationist (although making it look like it is from a reputable "scientific journal"- see p. 96). It also tries to explain away earlier hominids as degenerate races of _Homo sapiens_.

Chapter 8, "Mutations - A Basis for Evolution?" uses one of the worst arguments in the whole book. First of all, they make it look like all mutations are deleterious. In reality, there is a spectrum of mutations, ranging from deleterious to neutral to beneficial. In addition, a mutation that is deleterious in one environment could be advantageous in another environment. Next, they use this argument, which is based on a false assumption:





> In his book, _The Wellsprings of Life_, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: "Most mutations are for the worse." However, he then asserted: "In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward." But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you? (p.101-102, par. 9)


This argument does not apply, because we are dealing with populations, not individuals. As computer programs show, natural selection works. No evolutionist is saying that any one organism suddenly gets 1000 good mutations and evolves "upward". Rather, species develop relatively few mutations, and over time, the ones that are advantageous to survival propagate through the gene pool. The neutral ones become distributed by chance, and the deleterious ones are selected against.
The rest of the book is devoted to proving the existence of God by using the argument from design. The next chapters talk about the wonderful universe, the conditions on earth that make life possible, the design of living things (ignoring, of course , the horribly _bad_ design in many living things), animal adaptations, instinct, and finally, the "Human Miracle". Then the book goes into chapters such as "Why Do Many Accept Evolution?", and "Can You Trust the Bible?" After establishing the "reasons" people believe in evolution, and the inerrancy of the Bible, they set out their basic JW doctrines (resurrection, eternal life on earth, etc etc) and try to convince the reader to become a convert.

All in all, I give the book a horribly bad rating. Useful information in the book is probably on the order of 5%. I have read much better creationist books, such as _Darwin on Trial_.


----------



## Hollie

Here we have more misinformation from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society with no supporting data. There is no expectation that any of the creation ministries perform research and publish data but specious claims from creation ministries which presume an expected bias simply lend no credibility to such opinions.




*Claim CB050:*
Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence. Since it has not been observed in the laboratory, it is not science.





__





						CB050:  Abiogenesis is speculation?
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				




*Source:*
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pp. 50-52.

*Response:*

There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:
research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997).

See also the references and suggested readings with Primitive cells are too complex, Abiogenesis experiments assume a reducing atmosphere, DNA needs proteins to form, proteins need DNA, Amino acids are left-handed,
*References:*

Cody, G. D. et al. 2000. Primordial carbonylated iron-sulfur compounds and the synthesis of pyruvate. _Science_ 289: 1337-1340. See also Wächtershäuser, 2000 (below).
Ferris, J. P., A. R. Hill Jr., R. Liu and L. E. Orgel. 1996. Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. _Nature_ 381: 59-61.
Kuzicheva, E. A. and N. B. Gontareva. 1999. The possibility of nucleotide abiogenetic synthesis in conditions of 'KOSMOS-2044' satellite space flight. _Advances in Space Research_ 23(2): 393-396.
Orgel, L. E. 1998. Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. _Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere_ 28: 227-34.
Rode, B. M., H. L. Son and Y. Suwannachot. 1999. The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions. _Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere_ 29: 273-86.
Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. _Journal of the Geological Society of London_ 154: 377-402. University of Glasgow - Research - Research units A-Z
Schueller, Gretel. 1998. Stuff of life. _New Scientist_ 159(2151) (12 Sep.): 31-35, http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/astrobiology/stuffof.jsp
*Further Reading:*
RESA. n.d. Origins of life. http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

Wächtershäuser, Günter. 2000. Life as we don't know it. _Science_ 289: 1307-1308.

Deamer, D. W. and J. Ferris. 1999. The origins and early evolution of life. [the table of contents of the journal _Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere_ and related information] http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/~deamer/home.html


----------



## ChemEngineer

Weatherman2020 said:


> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
> Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
> To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.



Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!!  It was a round rock yanno.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Newtonian said:


> So one could say our literature says the probability is *10^21  or 10*113 or 10^40,000* - all of this would be correct but missing the detailed source of those numbers,   Interesting that your source does not even dare to print any probability calculation or result.
> .



Those figures in bold are large numbers, NOT probabilities.  ONE IN each of them would be a probability as you well know.  Let us be precise. 10^-21 or 10*-113 or 10^-40,000.
The range of probabilities is always between 0 and 1.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
> Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
> To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!!  It was a round rock yanno.
Click to expand...

Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  One need only look at what happened to Galileo when he had the audacity to claim to the church that the Earth wasn't the "center of the universe."  Islam is a modern example of ignorance and religion dictating peoples lives.  Religion should never have much influence over a government; once it does, it is a quick step towards being murderous in the name of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right up to the minute citing Galileo, aren't you!  By golly millions killed and all Galileo's fault.
> Joseph Stalin is considerably more recent than Galileo, but you don't want to talk about murderous atheists like Stalin and the even more murderous Chairman Mao, fascists both.  Fascism is thoroughly Leftist.  Read Liberal Fascism, if you're man enough.  I'll pay for your copy, with U.S. currency that reads *"IN GOD WE TRUST"* ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious extremists fail to understand that the slogan "in god we trust" was a disassembly of the separation of church and state under Eisenhower in the 1950's during the cold war.  The Founding Fathers motto of "E Pluribus Unum" was changed to "In God We Trust" and placing "Under God" in the pledge-- both done in the 1950's and contrary to the principle of separation of church and state.
> 
> ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't care if our currency said, "All Hail Caesar," as long as it spends.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
> Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
> To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!!  It was a round rock yanno.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.
Click to expand...

Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
> Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
> To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!!  It was a round rock yanno.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.
Click to expand...

Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
> Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
> To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!!  It was a round rock yanno.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?
Click to expand...

I have no idea why people who don’t believe in a creator thinks rocks will admire sunsets and paint paintings.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
> Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
> To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!!  It was a round rock yanno.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea why people who don’t believe in a creator thinks rocks will admire sunsets and paint paintings.
Click to expand...

You're ascribing human attributes to rocks as you do your gods. Do you spend time worshipping rocks like you do your gods?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
> Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
> To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!!  It was a round rock yanno.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea why people who don’t believe in a creator thinks rocks will admire sunsets and paint paintings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ascribing human attributes to rocks as you do your gods. Do you spend time worshipping rocks like you do your gods?
Click to expand...

It’s hilarious how your religion can’t admit how crazy your beliefs are.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many flaws with the argument made by supernaturalist creationists is their confusion
> Life started either from the Periodic Table naturally or by a creator.
> To deny the obvious is to deny reality. And to think a rock will one day write a concerto is crazy talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the term "Rock and Roll" came from!!!  It was a round rock yanno.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd that supernaturalists would believe an inanimate object would write anything. Such magical thinking seems to be a syndrome that afflicts those who believe in magic and supernaturalism ie. alternate realities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Takes more faith than any religious person to think a rock will one day write a Concerto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think an inanimate object could write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea why people who don’t believe in a creator thinks rocks will admire sunsets and paint paintings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ascribing human attributes to rocks as you do your gods. Do you spend time worshipping rocks like you do your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s hilarious how your religion can’t admit how crazy your beliefs are.
Click to expand...

My beliefs are crazy?

You worship rocks and believe they write music.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Atheist Nonsense (But I repeat myself)

1.  "Atheism is growing!" See there. More and more smart and rational people are joining our side.
This nonsense neglects the fact that Christianity is THE largest group of humans on earth.  Atheists don't want to admit that because it detracts from their argument of how wonderful it is that their numbers are growing.  This nonsense also neglects the fact that atheist families rank lower in retaining their beliefs than virtually any other religion, (30%) according to a Pew Survey.




2.  "Who made God, huh, huh, huh!"

"If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University

3.  "We're smarter than you fundies, we're more rational, and more scientific."

This is the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority, while PRESUMING to be authorities which atheists clearly are not.
“*Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith.   Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic.  (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God. 
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.”  ― Max Planck

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University
There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. - Robert Jastrow
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been waiting there for centuries. - Robert Jastrow
*


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Atheist Nonsense (But I repeat myself)
> 
> 1.  "Atheism is growing!" See there. More and more smart and rational people are joining our side.
> This nonsense neglects the fact that Christianity is THE largest group of humans on earth.  Atheists don't want to admit that because it detracts from their argument of how wonderful it is that their numbers are growing.  This nonsense also neglects the fact that atheist families rank lower in retaining their beliefs than virtually any other religion, (30%) according to a Pew Survey.
> View attachment 338640
> 
> 2.  "Who made God, huh, huh, huh!"
> 
> "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University
> 
> 3.  "We're smarter than you fundies, we're more rational, and more scientific."
> 
> This is the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority, while PRESUMING to be authorities which atheists clearly are not.
> “*Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith.   Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic.  (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
> “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.
> “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.”  ― Max Planck
> 
> "Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University
> There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. - Robert Jastrow
> For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been waiting there for centuries. - Robert Jastrow*



It’s not as the fundies describe it.









						'Christianity as default is gone': the rise of a non-Christian Europe
					

Figures show a majority of young adults in 12 countries have no faith, with Czechs least religious




					www.theguardian.com
				













						Christianity a Dying Religion for Europe's Millennials
					

The continent was once home to most of the world's Christians, but today many people between 16 and 29 claim they have no religious affiliation.




					www.newsweek.com
				





30]

*United States*





						Decline of Christianity in the Western world - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




Christianity is the largest religion in the United States. In 2016, Christians represented 73.7% of the total population.[31] In 2019, Christians represented 65% of the total population, while those who identified as "no religion" or "unaffiliated" rose to 26% of the total population.[32] Nationwide Catholic membership increased between 2000 and 2017, but the number of churches declined by nearly 11%. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) lost about 30% of its congregation and closed 12.5% of its churches: the United Methodist church lost 16.7% of its congregation and 10.2% of its churches. The Presbyterian Church has had the sharpest decline in church membership: between 2000 and 2015 they lost over 40% of their congregation and 15.4% of their churches.[33] Infant baptism has also decreased; nationwide, Catholic baptisms are down by nearly 34%, and ELCA baptisms by over 40%.[33]

The facts are; “your side” includes antagonistic sects and subdivisions often at odds with one another.

Might I suggest your silly “quotes” were dumped intro the wrong thread?


----------



## the other mike

ChemEngineer said:


> *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.


Wow.
I knew you were messed up.

An engineer creationist ?
That's like being an airline pilot with a fear of heights.


----------



## Hollie

Angelo said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> I knew you were messed up.
> 
> An engineer creationist ?
> That's like being an airline pilot with a fear of heights.
Click to expand...

Aside from his claimed Chem engineer persona, he also spends time commanding the French forces at Waterloo.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Angelo said:


> Wow.
> I knew you were messed up.
> 
> An engineer creationist ?
> That's like being an airline pilot with a fear of heights.



I'm also a licensed pilot, Angelo.  If only I were as brilliant and successful as you are.  If only.
Now please wax intellectual and give everyone a lecture on abiogenesis, as you believe it took place.
I can't wait to learn from you Angelo.  Really.


----------



## ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> I knew you were messed up.
> 
> An engineer creationist ?
> That's like being an airline pilot with a fear of heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also a licensed pilot, Angelo.  If only I were as brilliant and successful as you are.  If only.
> Now please wax intellectual and give everyone a lecture on abiogenesis, as you believe it took place.
> I can't wait to learn from you Angelo.  Really.
Click to expand...


Still waiting on your abiogenesis lecture, Angelo.  It's gotta be good as intellectual as you are.....


----------



## the other mike

ChemEngineer said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> I knew you were messed up.
> 
> An engineer creationist ?
> That's like being an airline pilot with a fear of heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also a licensed pilot, Angelo.  If only I were as brilliant and successful as you are.  If only.
> Now please wax intellectual and give everyone a lecture on abiogenesis, as you believe it took place.
> I can't wait to learn from you Angelo.  Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting on your abiogenesis lecture, Angelo.  It's gotta be good as intellectual as you are.....
Click to expand...

I don't care if you're a licensed NBA massage therapist.
And I don't lecture people.


----------



## alang1216

ChemEngineer said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> I knew you were messed up.
> 
> An engineer creationist ?
> That's like being an airline pilot with a fear of heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also a licensed pilot, Angelo.  If only I were as brilliant and successful as you are.  If only.
> Now please wax intellectual and give everyone a lecture on abiogenesis, as you believe it took place.
> I can't wait to learn from you Angelo.  Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting on your abiogenesis lecture, Angelo.  It's gotta be good as intellectual as you are.....
Click to expand...

Are you expecting proof, evidence, or just possible theories?  The first two are most likely lost forever, the latter are available in abundance.


----------

