Scientists Refuting Darwinism

[Hollie]

Your ignorance glistens like dew on the grass.
The overwhelming majority of Nobel Laureates in sciences believe in God.
I have provided scores if not hundreds of quotations from scientists who assert as much.
You are too blind to see much less think.
Miracles surround you, but you take them for granted. I explain just a few of them in my book
which has been lauded by medical doctors, dentists, and teachers.

Ah. Your book. So be honest. You're just a small time hustler trying to sell product.

 

[Dagosa]

The bibles provide evidence

You can stop right there.
Evidence is composed of available facts. There are no facts emulating from the Bible by your own admission as you continue the statement.

 

[Dagosa]

And now that church accepts Darwinian evolution as a theory at least.

All “theories are theories.“ in science. They are all subject to further investigation and modifications as new evidence becomes available. . Religion does no such thing.

 

[Nobody911]

Nope. He doesn’t even believe in the periodic table.

Gee...his reply reflected something abnormal. I don't think I should discuss it here. Thanks for telling me.

And here is some info about scientists against Darwinism.

Source:

1) Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard. – Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard./

Download the list here https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

2) Hundreds Of Scientists Question Darwin's Theory Of Evolution – Hundreds Of Scientists Question Darwin's Theory Of Evolution/

3) Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American – Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American/

4) Youtube

 

[Hollie]

Gee...his reply reflected something abnormal. I don't think I should discuss it here. Thanks for telling me.

And here is some info about scientists against Darwinism.

Source:

1) Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard. – Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard./

Download the list here https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

2) Hundreds Of Scientists Question Darwin's Theory Of Evolution – Hundreds Of Scientists Question Darwin's Theory Of Evolution/

3) Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American – Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American/

4) Youtube

Yeah. The Disco'tute.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Toro]

You don't need scientists to refute Darwin.

All you need to do is to read the Trumptard posts on this site to see that that the dumbest don't survive.

LOL

 

[Dagosa]

Gee...his reply reflected something abnormal. I don't think I should discuss it here. Thanks for telling me.

And here is some info about scientists against Darwinism.

Source:

1) Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard. – Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard./

Download the list here https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

2) Hundreds Of Scientists Question Darwin's Theory Of Evolution – Hundreds Of Scientists Question Darwin's Theory Of Evolution/

3) Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American – Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American/

4) Youtube

Chem Engineer claimed in a post that literally, everyone who used the periodic table were incorrect in its intent. That’s claiming that he knew more then every university, high school and related research facility in the world about the periodic table,. He’s a total fraud.

 

[scruffy]

Titin - ~34,000 amino acid residues
1/20 to the 34,000 is essentially zero.
It gets worse FOR YOU when you account for chirality, peptide versus non-peptide bonds, and folding.

This statement alone reveals a complete ignorance of cellular biophysics.

Things simply don't work this way. DNA assembly and mutation is highly non-linear.

But even if they did, your numbers are not impressive. There are 10^26 molecules in a gallon of water, and 10^18 gallons of water in the ocean. You're under-impressive by a dozen orders of magnitude.

I assume you know what a Poisson process is? If you're really interested in the math you have to use the math of events, and intervals between events.

 

[Nobody911]

Yeah. The Disco'tute.

Thanks for the laugh.

lol. Thanks for civilized reply! Make America great again! Lol.

 

[ChemEngineer]

3) Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American – Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American/

4) Youtube

These observations and opinions would be impossible if Darwinian evolution were "fact, fact, fact."
But clearly that is not the case. It is statistically impossible, for many reasons.

 

[ChemEngineer]

This statement alone reveals a complete ignorance of cellular biophysics.

You don't know what you're talking about. Your made-up term of "cellular biophysics" is inane and meaningless.
Biochemistry involves building links in very long polypeptide chains. There is no other way.
YOU explain how the first gallon of water "selected" the precise amino acid of 20 used in human proteins.
Then explain how the first gallon of water "selected" the precisely correct second amino acid, levorotary, not dextrorotary, to bond with a peptide bond to the first. Continue this process by your *Magic Selection* 10,000 times, which would be 1/20 to the 10,000th times 1/2 to the 10,000th, times 1/2 to the 10,000th.

Things simply don't work this way. DNA assembly and mutation is highly non-linear.

But even if they did, your numbers are not impressive. There are 10^26 molecules in a gallon of water, and 10^18 gallons of water in the ocean. You're under-impressive by a dozen orders of magnitude.

I assume you know what a Poisson process is? If you're really interested in the math you have to use the math of events, and intervals between events.

Try thinking this through, "Scruffy." If you flip a coin ten times a minute or you flip a coin once every ten years, tell your spellbound audience how the probability of 50/50 heads or tails changes. Take your time. Take ten years to think it through, "Scruffy".

 

[Hollie]

These observations and opinions would be impossible if Darwinian evolution were "fact, fact, fact."
But clearly that is not the case. It is statistically impossible, for many reasons.

In "fact, fact, fact.", opinions are not fact. This is another of the failures attached to your weak attempts to condemn science in favor of your religionism. Opinions by those not in the fields of biological sciences are not convincing absent their ability to offer facts and evidence. An inability to offer facts and evidence is what colors your anti-science tirades as merely the tirades of an angry religionist.

Your silly ''polypeptides'' rants which you litter across most threads are simply rote copying and pasting of what you steal from fundanentalist ministries.

There is nothing ''statistically impossible'' about life naturally occurring as we have life on the planet to contradict your silly claims.

 

[Dagosa]

This statement alone reveals a complete ignorance of cellular biophysics.

Things simply don't work this way. DNA assembly and mutation is highly non-linear.

But even if they did, your numbers are not impressive. There are 10^26 molecules in a gallon of water, and 10^18 gallons of water in the ocean. You're under-impressive by a dozen orders of magnitude.

I assume you know what a Poisson process is? If you're really interested in the math you have to use the math of events, and intervals between events.

Yup, he’s a fraud. He’s a chem engineer by self proclamation only.

 

[Donald H]

All “theories are theories.“ in science. They are all subject to further investigation and modifications as new evidence becomes available. .

Right on science!

Religion does no such thing.

And right on religion with one exception that the Christian church attempts to sweep under the rug. The revision of the supposed word of their god, with a new edition.

 

[Dagosa]

Right on science!


And right on religion with one exception that the Christian church attempts to sweep under the rug. The revision of the supposed word of their god, with a new edition.

Well, religions do what they do. If it’s based on fallacy, you make up many different parables in hopes that everyone will be appeased by at least one of them. If two seem to conflict, we’re supposed to be set at ease by the over worked phrase, “ that we’ll never completely understand God’s plan”. Personally, if man has free will and was conceived in gods image, there is no plan.

 

[Donald H]

Well, religions do what they do. If it’s based on fallacy, you make up many different parables in hopes that everyone will be appeased by at least one of them. If two seem to conflict, we’re supposed to be set at ease by the over worked phrase, “ that we’ll never completely understand God’s plan”. Personally, if man has free will and was conceived in gods image, there is no plan.

Thank you for trying to elevate these debates on religious superstitious beliefs to a higher level!
That which you've pointed out is definitely one of the Christians ploys.

However, I think we've got them backed into a corner now, since the churches were forced to accept Darwinian evolution.

That can now be their reality while the creation myths can be their 'pretend' fallback position.

 

[Dagosa]

However, I think we've got them backed into a corner now, since the churches were forced to accept Darwinian evolution.

Of course. But only because they admit that their religion deals with the spirit and is not of this world. Until we start bringing people back to life after three plus days of being dead, religion will continue to own that story. Given what occurs just hours after clinical death, religion keeps a strong hold. Of the Christian religions, catholicism has always been the most “ flexible”.

 

[ChemEngineer]

1. You haters prattle nonsense and then pat yourselves on the back as if it were substantive when it is
nothing of the sort.

2. Many thousands of scientists and atheists reject Darwin's archaic nonsense on the basis of science, not anything else.
Try to get a grip and discuss science and stop thumping the Bible... for a change.

3. You people don't prattle facts, you just generalize and pretend to know.
Dagosa doesn't even know the difference between "then" and "than."

4. Many of you are on ignore but unfortunately your nonsense continues to peek through
in others' posts and in some of my emails, unfortunately.
Dagosa's ignorance is tragic. I pointed out the grammatical error implicit in the name of "The Periodic Table" and
he jumps the rails and cites mathematics, which has nothing to do with the points I made. Zero.
I have a published inspirational science book, a patent pending on a new tennis racket design, chemical engineering degree, MBA, pilot's license, extensive world travel experience, earned millions, and Mister Big Mouth can't differentiate between "then" and "than."
But, hey, he's got a cute mustache, like so many other homosexuals wear, to hide their stretch marks.

 

[Hollie]

1. You haters prattle nonsense and then pat yourselves on the back as if it were substantive when it is
nothing of the sort.

2. Many thousands of scientists and atheists reject Darwin's archaic nonsense on the basis of science, not anything else.
Try to get a grip and discuss science and stop thumping the Bible... for a change.

3. You people don't prattle facts, you just generalize and pretend to know.
Dagosa doesn't even know the difference between "then" and "than."

4. Many of you are on ignore but unfortunately your nonsense continues to peek through
in others' posts and in some of my emails, unfortunately.
Dagosa's ignorance is tragic. I pointed out the grammatical error implicit in the name of "The Periodic Table" and
he jumps the rails and cites mathematics, which has nothing to do with the points I made. Zero.
I have a published inspirational science book, a patent pending on a new tennis racket design, chemical engineering degree, MBA, pilot's license, extensive world travel experience, earned millions, and Mister Big Mouth can't differentiate between "then" and "than."
But, hey, he's got a cute mustache, like so many other homosexuals wear, to hide their stretch marks.

Now page 8 of this silly thread.

When are you going to present a refutation of biological evolution or shall we say your perpetually buffoonish reference to ‘Darwinism’.

Your angry brand of Religionism really suggests a need for an intervention.

 

[scruffy]

You don't know what you're talking about. Your made-up term of "cellular biophysics" is inane and meaningless.
Biochemistry involves building links in very long polypeptide chains. There is no other way.
YOU explain how the first gallon of water "selected" the precise amino acid of 20 used in human proteins.
Then explain how the first gallon of water "selected" the precisely correct second amino acid, levorotary, not dextrorotary, to bond with a peptide bond to the first. Continue this process by your *Magic Selection* 10,000 times, which would be 1/20 to the 10,000th times 1/2 to the 10,000th, times 1/2 to the 10,000th.



Try thinking this through, "Scruffy." If you flip a coin ten times a minute or you flip a coin once every ten years, tell your spellbound audience how the probability of 50/50 heads or tails changes. Take your time. Take ten years to think it through, "Scruffy".

You're being a world class idiot.

I happen to be an expert on stochastic differential equations, and a PhD in biochemistry. I don't need to "think through" an elementary statistics problem. By inspection, I can tell you straight up YOUR MATH IS WRONG. Things don't work that way. Sorry bud.

You want to go up against me on a math issue? Bring it. You'll be nice and toasty in time for tomorrow's lunch.

Don't waste time bleating, show me your math. So I can show you where you went wrong. You're dealing with molecules in solution. Why don't you start by showing us how YOU calculate how frequently two peptide molecules bump into each other.