Creationists

[Lonestar_logic]

Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case, your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations.

I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.

No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.

Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.

Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?

Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?

Why? Because the methods have been proven to be flawed.

"Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote that 'we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions -- a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.' Clark suggested 'that paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."

Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, page 223

In the case of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil because the date is consistent with aspects of the theory of evolution.

In other words, in dating fossils it is quite common that an assumption that the theory of evolution is true is used as a factor in dating fossils. This is a self-serving way of dating fossils, but it is a common tactic because scientists are so confident that the theory of evolution is true.

For example, by using morphology and an assumption of the theory of evolution, it may be assumed that "Fossil A" evolved before "Species B" "evolved." Thus, if "Fossil A" is believed to be 4,000,000 years old, "Fossil B" may be dated to be 3,700,000 years old solely on the basis of the date of "Fossil A" and a belief in evolution (i.e. it is dated based on where "Fossil B" fits on the phylogenetic tree relative to "Fossil A").

While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years). This is not theory; it is based on actual samples.

Also:

Scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex. All evidence of genetics indicates that this will not happen a single time in the next billion years. Yet, it had to happen hundreds of millions of times for all the species on the earth to be explained.

 

[Hollie]

No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.

Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.

Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?

Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?

Why? Because the methods have been proven to be flawed.

"Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote that 'we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions -- a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.' Clark suggested 'that paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."

Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, page 223

In the case of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil because the date is consistent with aspects of the theory of evolution.

In other words, in dating fossils it is quite common that an assumption that the theory of evolution is true is used as a factor in dating fossils. This is a self-serving way of dating fossils, but it is a common tactic because scientists are so confident that the theory of evolution is true.

For example, by using morphology and an assumption of the theory of evolution, it may be assumed that "Fossil A" evolved before "Species B" "evolved." Thus, if "Fossil A" is believed to be 4,000,000 years old, "Fossil B" may be dated to be 3,700,000 years old solely on the basis of the date of "Fossil A" and a belief in evolution (i.e. it is dated based on where "Fossil B" fits on the phylogenetic tree relative to "Fossil A").

While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years). This is not theory; it is based on actual samples.

Also:

Scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex. All evidence of genetics indicates that this will not happen a single time in the next billion years. Yet, it had to happen hundreds of millions of times for all the species on the earth to be explained.

Ah, Jonathan Wells. Your link was familiar as the cast of characters are predictably connected with the Disco' tute.

10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions" | NCSE

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?

Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?

Why? Because the methods have been proven to be flawed.

"Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote that 'we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions -- a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.' Clark suggested 'that paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."

Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, page 223

In the case of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil because the date is consistent with aspects of the theory of evolution.

In other words, in dating fossils it is quite common that an assumption that the theory of evolution is true is used as a factor in dating fossils. This is a self-serving way of dating fossils, but it is a common tactic because scientists are so confident that the theory of evolution is true.

For example, by using morphology and an assumption of the theory of evolution, it may be assumed that "Fossil A" evolved before "Species B" "evolved." Thus, if "Fossil A" is believed to be 4,000,000 years old, "Fossil B" may be dated to be 3,700,000 years old solely on the basis of the date of "Fossil A" and a belief in evolution (i.e. it is dated based on where "Fossil B" fits on the phylogenetic tree relative to "Fossil A").

While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years). This is not theory; it is based on actual samples.

Also:

Scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex. All evidence of genetics indicates that this will not happen a single time in the next billion years. Yet, it had to happen hundreds of millions of times for all the species on the earth to be explained.

Ah, Jonathan Wells. Your link was familiar as the cast of characters are predictably connected with the Disco' tute.

10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions" | NCSE

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Hollie]

Why? Because the methods have been proven to be flawed.

"Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote that 'we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions -- a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.' Clark suggested 'that paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."

Icons of Evolution - Science or Myth? Jonathan Wells, page 223

In the case of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil because the date is consistent with aspects of the theory of evolution.

In other words, in dating fossils it is quite common that an assumption that the theory of evolution is true is used as a factor in dating fossils. This is a self-serving way of dating fossils, but it is a common tactic because scientists are so confident that the theory of evolution is true.

For example, by using morphology and an assumption of the theory of evolution, it may be assumed that "Fossil A" evolved before "Species B" "evolved." Thus, if "Fossil A" is believed to be 4,000,000 years old, "Fossil B" may be dated to be 3,700,000 years old solely on the basis of the date of "Fossil A" and a belief in evolution (i.e. it is dated based on where "Fossil B" fits on the phylogenetic tree relative to "Fossil A").

While the reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100 million years, just 100 years). This is not theory; it is based on actual samples.

Also:

Scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex. All evidence of genetics indicates that this will not happen a single time in the next billion years. Yet, it had to happen hundreds of millions of times for all the species on the earth to be explained.

Ah, Jonathan Wells. Your link was familiar as the cast of characters are predictably connected with the Disco' tute.

10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions" | NCSE

Your concession is duly noted.

What did I concede? Nothing? That's correct thank you.

What you confirmed was that it is true, the primary anti- science movement originates from Christian fundamentalists. The Disco-tute' is one of several Christian ministries that furthers the anti- science agenda.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ah, Jonathan Wells. Your link was familiar as the cast of characters are predictably connected with the Disco' tute.

10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions" | NCSE

Your concession is duly noted.

What did I concede? Nothing? That's correct thank you.

What you confirmed was that it is true, the primary anti- science movement originates from Christian fundamentalists. The Disco-tute' is one of several Christian ministries that furthers the anti- science agenda.

Well you did nothing to disprove the claims of flawed dating methods or the fact that scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information.

In every case where science claims they have witnessed evolution, one of three things has happened:

1) It was a case of microevolution,
2) It was a case of microevolution coupled with tricky definitions,
3) It was a case of point mutations which resulted in a loss of genetic information, but due to environmental reasons, there was a survival benefit.

They have never witnessed, and will never witness, a new gene complex being created by evolution. Never!!

The theory of evolution is not a fact. In reality, it is not even a theory. The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense - or as one person put it, is nothing but a "fairy tale."

The two most basic pieces of the theory of evolution are the "first living cell" and the theory that randomly mutating very highly precise DNA strings will create new and improved genetic information and intelligence and it will create new and improved superior species.

However, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for either of these things.

In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.

 

[UltimateReality]

Shall I define "faith" for you?

You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.

If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.

If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?

Which adjective would you rather I use?

It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?

I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.

I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.

Lollie continues to fail to grasp the parameters of the Historic Sciences.

 

[Hollie]

Your concession is duly noted.

What did I concede? Nothing? That's correct thank you.

What you confirmed was that it is true, the primary anti- science movement originates from Christian fundamentalists. The Disco-tute' is one of several Christian ministries that furthers the anti- science agenda.

Well you did nothing to disprove the claims of flawed dating methods or the fact that scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information.

In every case where science claims they have witnessed evolution, one of three things has happened:

1) It was a case of microevolution,
2) It was a case of microevolution coupled with tricky definitions,
3) It was a case of point mutations which resulted in a loss of genetic information, but due to environmental reasons, there was a survival benefit.

They have never witnessed, and will never witness, a new gene complex being created by evolution. Never!!

The theory of evolution is not a fact. In reality, it is not even a theory. The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense - or as one person put it, is nothing but a "fairy tale."

The two most basic pieces of the theory of evolution are the "first living cell" and the theory that randomly mutating very highly precise DNA strings will create new and improved genetic information and intelligence and it will create new and improved superior species.

However, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for either of these things.

In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.

I'm afraid that your characterization of the first living cell as a piece of the theory of evolution denotes a primary ignorance of evolutionary theory. You are arguing against the very science you have no knowledge of. This is unfortunately a function of Christian ministries which use falsified information to cull the gullible and those with no science background.

The Theory and the fact of evolution is only denied by those with an abiding revulsion for science as promoted by creationist charlatans. That is why the strident anti-science agenda emanates so strongly from christianity.

 

[Hollie]

It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?

I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.

I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.

Lollie continues to fail to grasp the parameters of the Historic Sciences.

My goofy stalker is desperate for my attention.

 

[UltimateReality]

I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.

I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.

Lollie continues to fail to grasp the parameters of the Historic Sciences.

My goofy stalker is desperate for my attention.

I think you have me confused with the Muslim boys on the Islamic Forum.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

 

[Hollie]

In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.

Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims? I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.

Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?

 

[Hollie]

Lollie continues to fail to grasp the parameters of the Historic Sciences.

My goofy stalker is desperate for my attention.

I think you have me confused with the Muslim boys on the Islamic Forum.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

Desperate bids for attention. Are you confusing me with Muslim boys you have this creepy fascination with?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What did I concede? Nothing? That's correct thank you.

What you confirmed was that it is true, the primary anti- science movement originates from Christian fundamentalists. The Disco-tute' is one of several Christian ministries that furthers the anti- science agenda.

Well you did nothing to disprove the claims of flawed dating methods or the fact that scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information.

In every case where science claims they have witnessed evolution, one of three things has happened:

1) It was a case of microevolution,
2) It was a case of microevolution coupled with tricky definitions,
3) It was a case of point mutations which resulted in a loss of genetic information, but due to environmental reasons, there was a survival benefit.

They have never witnessed, and will never witness, a new gene complex being created by evolution. Never!!

The theory of evolution is not a fact. In reality, it is not even a theory. The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense - or as one person put it, is nothing but a "fairy tale."

The two most basic pieces of the theory of evolution are the "first living cell" and the theory that randomly mutating very highly precise DNA strings will create new and improved genetic information and intelligence and it will create new and improved superior species.

However, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for either of these things.

In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.

I'm afraid that your characterization of the first living cell as a piece of the theory of evolution denotes a primary ignorance of evolutionary theory. You are arguing against the very science you have no knowledge of. This is unfortunately a function of Christian ministries which use falsified information to cull the gullible and those with no science background.

The Theory and the fact of evolution is only denied by those with an abiding revulsion for science as promoted by creationist charlatans. That is why the strident anti-science agenda emanates so strongly from christianity.

That has been your argument this entire time.

Yet you provide NO FACTS to support your argument.

You claim my characterization is wrong yet you offer no characterization of your own.

You claim I don't understand evolutionary science yet you offer no valid argument to refute the facts I offered.

You claim my information is false. So prove that it's false. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them. One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person. However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person in the imaginary story, they could only put the other person in a situation from which it was impossible to escape alive.

For example, the conversation might go like this:

Me: The bad news is that you fell out of an airplane at
30,000 feet.
Son: The good news is that I had a parachute.
Me: The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.
Son: The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.
Me: The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the
haystack.
Son: The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.
Me: The bad news is that you missed the haystack.
Son: The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.
Me: The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.
Son: The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot
and melted the frozen manure instantly.

and so on.

This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate. It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.

I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest." Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother and go out into the dangerous world by themselves? Who goes out first? The strongest and most ambitious kitten goes out first. Is this kitten ready to take on the world? Absolutely not.

In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they are most likely to leave the protection of their mother long before they are strong enough to defend themselves.

Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says. And that is the point. It doesn't matter what you say.

The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world. That is the fact. There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.

If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.

The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury. Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.

But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost. So what would be the point of the debate?

In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly. Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution generated by computer simulations and mathematics. At that time scientists knew a little about DNA, but they had absolutely no clue how sophisticated DNA was. And the theory of evolution still got hammered!!

It didn't matter. After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to write new evolution books and preach the theory of evolution. They were not interested in finding the truth; they were interested in supporting their egos.

The battle will go on and on and on.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.

Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims? I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.

Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?

Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?

 

[Hollie]

Well you did nothing to disprove the claims of flawed dating methods or the fact that scientists have never observed the random creation of new genetic information.

In every case where science claims they have witnessed evolution, one of three things has happened:

1) It was a case of microevolution,
2) It was a case of microevolution coupled with tricky definitions,
3) It was a case of point mutations which resulted in a loss of genetic information, but due to environmental reasons, there was a survival benefit.

They have never witnessed, and will never witness, a new gene complex being created by evolution. Never!!

The theory of evolution is not a fact. In reality, it is not even a theory. The theory of evolution is scientific nonsense - or as one person put it, is nothing but a "fairy tale."

The two most basic pieces of the theory of evolution are the "first living cell" and the theory that randomly mutating very highly precise DNA strings will create new and improved genetic information and intelligence and it will create new and improved superior species.

However, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for either of these things.

In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.

I'm afraid that your characterization of the first living cell as a piece of the theory of evolution denotes a primary ignorance of evolutionary theory. You are arguing against the very science you have no knowledge of. This is unfortunately a function of Christian ministries which use falsified information to cull the gullible and those with no science background.

The Theory and the fact of evolution is only denied by those with an abiding revulsion for science as promoted by creationist charlatans. That is why the strident anti-science agenda emanates so strongly from christianity.

That has been your argument this entire time.

Yet you provide NO FACTS to support your argument.

You claim my characterization is wrong yet you offer no characterization of your own.

You claim I don't understand evolutionary science yet you offer no valid argument to refute the facts I offered.

You claim my information is false. So prove that it's false. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them. One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person. However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person in the imaginary story, they could only put the other person in a situation from which it was impossible to escape alive.

For example, the conversation might go like this:

Me: The bad news is that you fell out of an airplane at
30,000 feet.
Son: The good news is that I had a parachute.
Me: The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.
Son: The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.
Me: The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the
haystack.
Son: The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.
Me: The bad news is that you missed the haystack.
Son: The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.
Me: The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.
Son: The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot
and melted the frozen manure instantly.

and so on.

This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate. It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.

I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest." Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother and go out into the dangerous world by themselves? Who goes out first? The strongest and most ambitious kitten goes out first. Is this kitten ready to take on the world? Absolutely not.

In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they are most likely to leave the protection of their mother long before they are strong enough to defend themselves.

Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says. And that is the point. It doesn't matter what you say.

The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world. That is the fact. There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.

If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.

The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury. Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.

But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost. So what would be the point of the debate?

In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly. Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution generated by computer simulations and mathematics. At that time scientists knew a little about DNA, but they had absolutely no clue how sophisticated DNA was. And the theory of evolution still got hammered!!

It didn't matter. After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to write new evolution books and preach the theory of evolution. They were not interested in finding the truth; they were interested in supporting their egos.

The battle will go on and on and on.

There really is no battle. As noted, the only objection to science comess from fundie Christians. Your subjective impressions of kittens in a litter are hardly meaningful.

It really is a shame that fundie Christians share this siege mentality when it comes to science and they will retreat into silly conspiracy theories to defend their gods.

 

[Hollie]

In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.

Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims? I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.

Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?

Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?

What facts have you presented?

 

[Hollie]

In fact, every piece of true scientific and mathematical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does not exist in science; it only exists in the minds of those who assume the theory of evolution is true and ignore all scientific evidence, such as genetic entropy, the theory behind genetic chaos, etc. etc.

Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims? I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.

Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?

Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?

The wistar symposium was a laughable joke.

ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium') - The Panda's Thumb

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm afraid that your characterization of the first living cell as a piece of the theory of evolution denotes a primary ignorance of evolutionary theory. You are arguing against the very science you have no knowledge of. This is unfortunately a function of Christian ministries which use falsified information to cull the gullible and those with no science background.

The Theory and the fact of evolution is only denied by those with an abiding revulsion for science as promoted by creationist charlatans. That is why the strident anti-science agenda emanates so strongly from christianity.

That has been your argument this entire time.

Yet you provide NO FACTS to support your argument.

You claim my characterization is wrong yet you offer no characterization of your own.

You claim I don't understand evolutionary science yet you offer no valid argument to refute the facts I offered.

You claim my information is false. So prove that it's false. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them. One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person. However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person in the imaginary story, they could only put the other person in a situation from which it was impossible to escape alive.

For example, the conversation might go like this:

Me: The bad news is that you fell out of an airplane at
30,000 feet.
Son: The good news is that I had a parachute.
Me: The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.
Son: The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.
Me: The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the
haystack.
Son: The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.
Me: The bad news is that you missed the haystack.
Son: The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.
Me: The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.
Son: The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot
and melted the frozen manure instantly.

and so on.

This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate. It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.

I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest." Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother and go out into the dangerous world by themselves? Who goes out first? The strongest and most ambitious kitten goes out first. Is this kitten ready to take on the world? Absolutely not.

In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they are most likely to leave the protection of their mother long before they are strong enough to defend themselves.

Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says. And that is the point. It doesn't matter what you say.

The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world. That is the fact. There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.

If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.

The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury. Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.

But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost. So what would be the point of the debate?

In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly. Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution generated by computer simulations and mathematics. At that time scientists knew a little about DNA, but they had absolutely no clue how sophisticated DNA was. And the theory of evolution still got hammered!!

It didn't matter. After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to write new evolution books and preach the theory of evolution. They were not interested in finding the truth; they were interested in supporting their egos.

The battle will go on and on and on.

There really is no battle. As noted, the only objection to science comess from fundie Christians. Your subjective impressions of kittens in a litter are hardly meaningful.

It really is a shame that fundie Christians share this siege mentality when it comes to science and they will retreat into silly conspiracy theories to defend their gods.

Same old stale argument with no facts to support anything you say or to dispute anything I've claimed.

Class dismissed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Have you considered emailing the science departments of leading universities with your creationist claims? I'm sure those universities would be interested to learn that your cutting and pasting from the Disco-tute' has rendered all of evolutionary science as null and void.

Shall we substitute a "praise hey-zoos" in place of the biological sciences?

Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?

The wistar symposium was a laughable joke.

ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium') - The Panda's Thumb

Yet still no proof of evolution.

You do know it's called a "theory" for a reason.

 

[Hollie]

That has been your argument this entire time.

Yet you provide NO FACTS to support your argument.

You claim my characterization is wrong yet you offer no characterization of your own.

You claim I don't understand evolutionary science yet you offer no valid argument to refute the facts I offered.

You claim my information is false. So prove that it's false. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

When my children were growing up, I used to play mind-games with them. One person would try to mentally "kill" the other person. However, the person could not directly "kill" the other person in the imaginary story, they could only put the other person in a situation from which it was impossible to escape alive.

For example, the conversation might go like this:

Me: The bad news is that you fell out of an airplane at
30,000 feet.
Son: The good news is that I had a parachute.p
Me: The bad news is that your parachute didn't open.
Son: The good news is that I was headed for a haystack.
Me: The bad news is that there was a pitchfork in the
haystack.
Son: The good news is that I missed the pitchfork.
Me: The bad news is that you missed the haystack.
Son: The good news is that I landed on a pile of manure.
Me: The bad news is that the manure was frozen solid.
Son: The good news is that my suit of armor was very hot
and melted the frozen manure instantly.

and so on.

This is a good demonstration of the evolution debate. It doesn't matter how ludicrous the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is, or how bad the probability is, evolutionists will simply come up with some new spin to justify the theory of evolution.

I will give you a simple counterexample to the concept of "survival of the fittest." Have you ever seen a liter of kittens just about the time they are able to leave the mother and go out into the dangerous world by themselves? Who goes out first? The strongest and most ambitious kitten goes out first. Is this kitten ready to take on the world? Absolutely not.

In fact, the strongest and most ambitious kittens are frequently killed because they are so ambitious they are most likely to leave the protection of their mother long before they are strong enough to defend themselves.

Of course, the evolutionists would disagree because they will always disagree with anything a creation scientist says. And that is the point. It doesn't matter what you say.

The battle between the theory of evolution and creation science will not end until the end of the world. That is the fact. There are so many people who want the theory of evolution to be true, for a multitude of different reasons; they will never give up their cherished theory.

If an unbiased "jury" were to look at the true scientific evidence from both sides of the debate, the theory of evolution would be rejected as scientific nonsense.

The problem is there is no such thing as an unbiased jury. Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased judge.

But even if there was, the media would never give any publicity to any debate the theory of evolution lost. So what would be the point of the debate?

In 1966, at the Wistar symposium, the theory of evolution lost badly. Several world-famous evolutionists were at the symposium and had no answers for the criticisms of the theory of evolution generated by computer simulations and mathematics. At that time scientists knew a little about DNA, but they had absolutely no clue how sophisticated DNA was. And the theory of evolution still got hammered!!

It didn't matter. After the symposium the evolutionists simply brushed themselves off, and continued to write new evolution books and preach the theory of evolution. They were not interested in finding the truth; they were interested in supporting their egos.

The battle will go on and on and on.

There really is no battle. As noted, the only objection to science comess from fundie Christians. Your subjective impressions of kittens in a litter are hardly meaningful.

It really is a shame that fundie Christians share this siege mentality when it comes to science and they will retreat into silly conspiracy theories to defend their gods.

Same old stale argument with no facts to support anything you say or to dispute anything I've claimed.

Class dismissed.

Run and hide if you wish. You seem confused that your homespun stories and tales of kitten litters somehow represents an argument worth reading or responding to.

Your cut and paste about the wistar symposium is a lot of flaming about creationist propaganda that was ridiculed for being silly creationists flailing their pom poms with no allowance for peer reviewed refutation.

I see no creationist "facts" supporting a compelling case for your gods, only the typical science hating fundie bluster.

 

[Hollie]

Have you ever considering countering my argument with facts?

The wistar symposium was a laughable joke.

ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 'Wistar Retrospective Symposium') - The Panda's Thumb

Yet still no proof of evolution.

You do know it's called a "theory" for a reason.

You would need some education in science to understand biological evolution. As you demonstrated earlier, your only exposure to evolutionary theory was the twisted and falsified accounts furthered by Christian creationist ministries. Your account of evolutionary theory was completely wrong and showed an abysmal level of the most basic scientific concepts surrounding the subject.

As for proof of evolution, there is ample proof. You can research that proof at any college or university library or on the web. Your conspiracy theories that hinge upon a vast, global network of conspirators who have conspired to defeat your belief in supermagical gods is... unhinged. But you do have a right to be unhinged.