When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?

[Ringtone]

"...than...''

Finally, something on which we agree, a point of English grammar. LOL!

 

[Ringtone]

Expressing to the board your hurt feelings?

You delicate flower.

LOL!

 

[ChemEngineer]

Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.

It has nothing of the sort, and your foolish repetition of this old saw achieves nothing except to people who cannot think.


“It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.” (Dr. I.L. Cohen, “Darwin Was Wrong:” A Study in Probabilities (1985)


“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.” (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)


“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)

“Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted.” (Dr. T.H Morgan)



“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 Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

 

[Hollie]

Expressing to the board your hurt feelings?

You delicate flower.

View attachment 443270

LOL!

Repetitive cut and paste spam.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.

It has nothing of the sort, and your foolish repetition of this old saw achieves nothing except to people who cannot think.


“It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.” (Dr. I.L. Cohen, “Darwin Was Wrong:” A Study in Probabilities (1985)


“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.” (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)


“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, “Evolution, Erratic Pace”)

“Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted.” (Dr. T.H Morgan)



“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 Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

I’m guessing the bold, gargantuan text is intended to convince others those sloppy, cut and paste “quotes” are true?

 

[Anomalism]

I’m guessing the bold, gargantuan text is intended to convince others those sloppy, cut and paste “quotes” are true?

How big of scientific news do you suppose it would be if evolution was unraveling?

 

[Hollie]

I’m guessing the bold, gargantuan text is intended to convince others those sloppy, cut and paste “quotes” are true?

How big of scientific news do you suppose it would be if evolution was unraveling?

That would be big news.

 

[Anomalism]

That would be big news.

It's like they don't realize that.

 

[james bond]

The earth is much older than Genesis.

No, it isn't. The atheist scientists had to have an old Earth for evolution so they made it so.

Dec 11, 2019 · The world's oldest cave art: Indonesian cave painting that shows mythical figures using spears to kill pigs was created 44,000 years ago. Paintings in red were found in limestone cave on ...

Ditto.

 

[james bond]

When was theology ever a branch of science?

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Before the four formal sciences which you mentioned was religion. Today's religion came first in the 16th century. Modern science came after in the 17th. (If you want what was before that -- Timeline of religion - Wikipedia).

The study of the relationship between religion and science surprisingly started in the 1960s when scholars in theology, philosophy, history, and the sciences have studied the relationship between science and religion.

Thus, most of us do not think much of your contributions to these discussions because of your beliefs and automatic discarding of religion.

 

[Old Rocks]

If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related. Darwin just had a hypothesis. He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence. Furthermore, we still have apes and all are not bipedal.

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
"All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in Trends in Genetics evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp

All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of...

www.icr.org

Yesirreeeeeeeeee........................... And the Earth is also flat. LOL

 

[Hollie]

When was theology ever a branch of science?

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Before the four formal sciences which you mentioned was religion. Today's religion came first in the 16th century. Modern science came after in the 17th. (If you want what was before that -- Timeline of religion - Wikipedia).

The study of the relationship between religion and science surprisingly started in the 1960s when scholars in theology, philosophy, history, and the sciences have studied the relationship between science and religion.

Thus, most of us do not think much of your contributions to these discussions because of your beliefs and automatic discarding of religion.

Well, now. If it is ''quotes'' you want....

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

Albert Einstein

You have this odd notion that religionism coming before science somehow makes religionism ''correct''. That's rather silly. It may come as a shock to you but the processes of nature are not governed by the gods. Thunder and lightning are not a product of angry gods. Science, why admittedly ''coming behind'' religion, has given us the processes for thunder, lightning and other processes of nature.

As you have decided you you speak on behalf of ''most of us', I'm curious to know if it was a consensus agreement among the religioners to make you the Ayatollah. Since you have decided that ''most of us'' don't like my contribution to the board, should I be concerned that you and those like you are going to preserve your ''honor'' as they do in some parts of the workd?

There is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.


Evolution, the physical sciences and our understanding of the universe are based on physical evidence from observation and testing of theorems. Christianity claims that the Gods had something to do with the creation of the earth, and therefore Christians are responsible for that evidence. If evolution and the physical sciences are true, then the magic and supernaturalism of the Gods cannot be trusted. And if you can't trust the Gods, then what good is the Bible?

Belief in Bibles and supernaturalism is governed entirely by the choice one makes. When reason and rationality conflict with religious dogma you have to embrace either reason or dogma. We are social animals, and like most other social animals it is always less stressful to follow leaders, especially religious leaders, like sheep. I am certain that ignoring the obvious is much more comforting to you than doubting that certain absurdities are true. You are not alone.

But it is not a particularly good process for discerning truth.

 

[james bond]

When was theology ever a branch of science?

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Before the four formal sciences which you mentioned was religion. Today's religion came first in the 16th century. Modern science came after in the 17th. (If you want what was before that -- Timeline of religion - Wikipedia).

The study of the relationship between religion and science surprisingly started in the 1960s when scholars in theology, philosophy, history, and the sciences have studied the relationship between science and religion.

Thus, most of us do not think much of your contributions to these discussions because of your beliefs and automatic discarding of religion.

Well, now. If it is ''quotes'' you want....

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

Albert Einstein

You have this odd notion that religionism coming before science somehow makes religionism ''correct''. That's rather silly. It may come as a shock to you but the processes of nature are not governed by the gods. Thunder and lightning are not a product of angry gods. Science, why admittedly ''coming behind'' religion, has given us the processes for thunder, lightning and other processes of nature.

As you have decided you you speak on behalf of ''most of us', I'm curious to know if it was a consensus agreement among the religioners to make you the Ayatollah. Since you have decided that ''most of us'' don't like my contribution to the board, should I be concerned that you and those like you are going to preserve your ''honor'' as they do in some parts of the workd?

There is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.


Evolution, the physical sciences and our understanding of the universe are based on physical evidence from observation and testing of theorems. Christianity claims that the Gods had something to do with the creation of the earth, and therefore Christians are responsible for that evidence. If evolution and the physical sciences are true, then the magic and supernaturalism of the Gods cannot be trusted. And if you can't trust the Gods, then what good is the Bible?

Belief in Bibles and supernaturalism is governed entirely by the choice one makes. When reason and rationality conflict with religious dogma you have to embrace either reason or dogma. We are social animals, and like most other social animals it is always less stressful to follow leaders, especially religious leaders, like sheep. I am certain that ignoring the obvious is much more comforting to you than doubting that certain absurdities are true. You are not alone.

But it is not a particularly good process for discerning truth.

It's not quotes that I want; I was just fortunate to find Einstein's quote. It should open your eyes to how religion and science are related as I've stated many times over, but you automatically discard religion based on your false beliefs. I'm not sure if it's atheism (a religion in itself) that causes it but something deep inside you won't allow you to understand the relationship. It's just natural that we discuss religion here in S&T as well as science in R&E.

>>For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.<<

I'm not going to touch this, but to point out your stating it's "childish superstitions." You should know it's not just a belief in God (religion), but the Torah and science is what forms the knowledge base and history for a group of people -- Torah and Science - My Jewish Learning.

>>You have this odd notion that religionism coming before science somehow makes religionism ''correct''. That's rather silly. It may come as a shock to you but the processes of nature are not governed by the gods. Thunder and lightning are not a product of angry gods. Science, why admittedly ''coming behind'' religion, has given us the processes for thunder, lightning and other processes of nature.<<

I don't think anyone here practices religionism in the S&T and haven't said anything that you profess we do such as what thunder and lightning are. The argument I presented was explaining what was there before the big bang and KCA. That is a logical explanation and argument and the Christians found the Bible explained in detail what happened.

I don't expect you to accept it, but you can't just discard it saying it's religion and not based on knowledge.

As for your claim that KCA is a fallacy, you can't argue that against William Lane Craig. He is a professor of logic.

 

[Hollie]

When was theology ever a branch of science?

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

Before the four formal sciences which you mentioned was religion. Today's religion came first in the 16th century. Modern science came after in the 17th. (If you want what was before that -- Timeline of religion - Wikipedia).

The study of the relationship between religion and science surprisingly started in the 1960s when scholars in theology, philosophy, history, and the sciences have studied the relationship between science and religion.

Thus, most of us do not think much of your contributions to these discussions because of your beliefs and automatic discarding of religion.

Well, now. If it is ''quotes'' you want....

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

Albert Einstein

You have this odd notion that religionism coming before science somehow makes religionism ''correct''. That's rather silly. It may come as a shock to you but the processes of nature are not governed by the gods. Thunder and lightning are not a product of angry gods. Science, why admittedly ''coming behind'' religion, has given us the processes for thunder, lightning and other processes of nature.

As you have decided you you speak on behalf of ''most of us', I'm curious to know if it was a consensus agreement among the religioners to make you the Ayatollah. Since you have decided that ''most of us'' don't like my contribution to the board, should I be concerned that you and those like you are going to preserve your ''honor'' as they do in some parts of the workd?

There is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.


Evolution, the physical sciences and our understanding of the universe are based on physical evidence from observation and testing of theorems. Christianity claims that the Gods had something to do with the creation of the earth, and therefore Christians are responsible for that evidence. If evolution and the physical sciences are true, then the magic and supernaturalism of the Gods cannot be trusted. And if you can't trust the Gods, then what good is the Bible?

Belief in Bibles and supernaturalism is governed entirely by the choice one makes. When reason and rationality conflict with religious dogma you have to embrace either reason or dogma. We are social animals, and like most other social animals it is always less stressful to follow leaders, especially religious leaders, like sheep. I am certain that ignoring the obvious is much more comforting to you than doubting that certain absurdities are true. You are not alone.

But it is not a particularly good process for discerning truth.

It's not quotes that I want; I was just fortunate to find Einstein's quote. It should open your eyes to how religion and science are related as I've stated many times over, but you automatically discard religion based on your false beliefs. I'm not sure if it's atheism (a religion in itself) that causes it but something deep inside you won't allow you to understand the relationship. It's just natural that we discuss religion here in S&T as well as science in R&E.

>>For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.<<

I'm not going to touch this, but to point out your stating it's "childish superstitions." You should know it's not just a belief in God (religion), but the Torah and science is what forms the knowledge base and history for a group of people -- Torah and Science - My Jewish Learning.

>>You have this odd notion that religionism coming before science somehow makes religionism ''correct''. That's rather silly. It may come as a shock to you but the processes of nature are not governed by the gods. Thunder and lightning are not a product of angry gods. Science, why admittedly ''coming behind'' religion, has given us the processes for thunder, lightning and other processes of nature.<<

I don't think anyone here practices religionism in the S&T and haven't said anything that you profess we do such as what thunder and lightning are. The argument I presented was explaining what was there before the big bang and KCA. That is a logical explanation and argument and the Christians found the Bible explained in detail what happened.

I don't expect you to accept it, but you can't just discard it saying it's religion and not based on knowledge.

As for your claim that KCA is a fallacy, you can't argue that against William Lane Craig. He is a professor of logic.

You have made no argument that science and religion are related. In fact, we see unbridgeable gaps separating them.

I have to note that in these various forums, it is exclusively Christians who are demonstrating their reliance on pseudoscience, metaphysics, Bibles and presumptions for their claims to partisan gods. We see clearly how marginal and sectarian their viewpoints are. Rail against biological evilution as you must. It isn't a religion or an appeal to supernaturalism, it's a science. Learn about the data supporting the theory and you will see that the explanations fit the data. Because they do, and testing supports the conclusions, then accept it as a provisionally true hypothesis and theory available for further research. I must caution you, though. If you follow through on the above, you'll be doing science, and who knows where it will all lead...

Religioners have explained nothing of what was before the expansion of the universe. You simply jam your gods into a gap of our knowledge. There is no evidence at all that supports ID creationism and nothing that supports the Earth and all its life was made by supernatural gods a few thousand years ago. The evidence which is readily available consistently and unambiguously demonstrates that the Earth is very old, and that life has existed on Earth in a huge variety of ever changing forms for millions of years.

While the processes that cause thunder and lightning are understood as naturally occurring, to suggest they are caused by angry gods serves what purpose? A similar argument can be made for the natural, rational world. What purpose is served by Christians insisting on supernaturalism as the cause of existence when the facts contradict such an argument? What ID creationers want to do is not learn the theology of their “holy texts”. They want to not interpret them at all. They insist on a literal interpretation and then launch into the most outrageous arguments in their need to have only literal Interpretation of their Bible be the truth. Unfortunately, two things remain true to confound the literalists: they still must interpret the texts to say they understand them as the literal truth; and their interpretations are contrary to testing and observable facts.

William Lane Craig is just another creationer. I certainly can argue against him. I just did. See above.

 

[d0gbreath]

Did Adam and Eve resemble Neanderthal, or Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens? Or Barbie and Ken?
If it's the former, a tiny bit of evolution was required to get to the people that look like the dolls, IMHO.

 

[Hollie]

Did Adam and Eve resemble Neanderthal, or Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens? Or Barbie and Ken?
If it's the former, a tiny bit of evolution was required to get to the people that look like the dolls, IMHO.

Westerners would go with the Barbie and Ken model. They would make A&E in their own image just as they did with making Jesus a tall, fair-haired, fair-skinned, Caucasian looking dude.

 

[sealybobo]

If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related. Darwin just had a hypothesis. He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence. Furthermore, we still have apes and all are not bipedal.

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
"All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in Trends in Genetics evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp

All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of...

www.icr.org

Have you ever seen the evolution of New Zealand? No mammals are native to the country. So it’s very interesting to see how the birds have evolved on this island. It’s almost like we get to see what evolution might look like on another planet. Some birds are meat eaters, carnivores, vegetarians. Some can’t fly. It’s crazy.

 

[sealybobo]

Did Adam and Eve resemble Neanderthal, or Cro-Magnon Homo Sapiens? Or Barbie and Ken?
If it's the former, a tiny bit of evolution was required to get to the people that look like the dolls, IMHO.

2 million years ago the first man. His brain was still a lot smaller than ours today. Started walking upright and using hands for tools. Started to wonder and think. Get smarter. Community.

 

[sealybobo]

I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.

The facts are, neither side can prove their side.

The creationists have science backing up their side. For example, Dr. Louis Pasteur proved only life begets life by his swan neck experiment.

What beget god?

Do you know the difference between our observable universe and the entire universe?

The entire universe has no end and no beginning

 

[abu afak]

Have you ever seen the evolution of New Zealand? No mammals are native to the country. So it’s very interesting to see how the birds have evolved on this island. It’s almost like we get to see what evolution might look like on another planet. Some birds are meat eaters, carnivores, vegetarians. Some can’t fly. It’s crazy.

And because you're ****** idiot you bumped up a false and already refuted 2.5+ month old headline/thread to disagree, but are so stupid as to not recognize you are actually promoting the title.

`