Science Disproves Evolution

[John Jones]

Those skulls have Bondo(tm) on them!

 

[tsig]

Of course he has made up his mind. ... ! He's making his case.
It was you I was asking the objective open-mindedness of..... or not.

So it's OK for him to make up his mind but if I do it I'm close minded?

How long must I keep this open mind? How many years must I look without finding before I'm justified in reaching a conclusion?

 

[Tubbythin]

So... I'm looking through this book. There is a distinct lack of quantitative analysis. What a surprise.
And some bizarre statements about how we don't understand why free neutrons decay in ~10 minutes but bound ones don't.
Can someone please explain to me why anyone would choose to write a book on something they know nothing about? Is there a name for this psychological disorder?

 

[tsig]

The closest living relative to whales in terms of DNA is the hippo.
You're not looking to any "point". You seek no dialogue.
You are a committed atheist, as demonstrated in your very screen name.

There is a splendid book titled The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

It is probably the best documented book I have ever read, with hundreds and hundreds of citations, referencing college professors, historians, archaeologists and other scholars.

If you were really interested in learning, you would read this and other books of a similar nature, which run counter to your dogma.

I do this all the time. The problem with leftists is that they have this knee-jerk reaction to anything outside their own narrow credo.

Did you ever check any of those citations?

 

[JonathanQuick]

Not true. LeMaitre's work was preceeded (SIC) by Friedmann's work (who was not a catholic (SIC) priest). So the idea that the entire scientific community rejected it is nonesense (SIC) and has nothing to do with the fact LeMaitre was a catholic (SIC) priest.

George LeMaitre confronted Albert Einstein. I never said LeMaitre's work was NOT A"preceded" by anybody else. I have no argument with that. But it is clearly irrelevant. Moreover, the relentless attacks on Christians by atheists, who call Christians "stupid" and "anti-scientific" makes LeMaitre's priesthood relevant. Were you honest, you would admit as much.

Again, this is nonesense. Einstein did not reject God, he rejected the notion of a finite (temporally) universe. When Hubble's observations showed an expanding Universe he changed his mind. Why? Because Einstein was an excellent scientist and not a religious fundamentalist.

"Your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." - Albert Einstein to George LeMaitre in rejecting the Primordial Atom

Scientists wanted the Steady State Universe to be true. They rejected reality in favor of their secular dogma. The very idea of a Creator was something they tried to avoid, and bent their science to do so.

Hehehehehehe. The National Geographic?! That it?

Incredible that you should giggle over something so very trivial.
No that is NOT "it." I mention National Geographic because it is the most recent of many, many evolutionary frauds. Now giggle on that.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Why are we talking about Einstein, Al Gore, and Barack Obama in an evolution thread?

 

[Marduk]

the relentless attacks on Christians by atheists, who call Christians "stupid" and "anti-scientific" makes LeMaitre's priesthood relevant.

This thread is attacking evolution by creationists, please try to stay on topic and stop using straw man arguments to not make any point

are you a creationist Jon ?

 

[John Jones]

Why are we talking about Einstein, Al Gore, and Barack Obama in an evolution thread?

Fling enough poo, and hope some will eventually stick.

 

[John Jones]

George LeMaitre confronted Albert Einstein. I never said LeMaitre's work was NOT A"preceded" by anybody else. I have no argument with that. But it is clearly irrelevant. Moreover, the relentless attacks on Christians by atheists, who call Christians "stupid" and "anti-scientific" makes LeMaitre's priesthood relevant. Were you honest, you would admit as much.




"Your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." - Albert Einstein to George LeMaitre in rejecting the Primordial Atom

Scientists wanted the Steady State Universe to be true. They rejected reality in favor of their secular dogma. The very idea of a Creator was something they tried to avoid, and bent their science to do so.





Incredible that you should giggle over something so very trivial.
No that is NOT "it." I mention National Geographic because it is the most recent of many, many evolutionary frauds. Now giggle on that.

Thank you for your permission to giggle.

 

[Marduk]

I'm here to present some ideas you have not seriously considered.
.

didn't somebody already point out to you that this isn't a general discussion thread, this thread was started by pahu to claim that science proves that evolution is false

do you have an opinion on that or not
and if you think its false, hadn't you better present some real evidence that isn't religious in origin ?

 

[John Jones]

JonathanQuick, Do you grok the concepts of analogies or similies?


If you come-out swinging wildly at the opening bell, don't be surprised if you get knocked flat on your back.

--

Spelling and grammar errors left intact for the benefit of those who have no real argument.

 

[Simon39759]

George LeMaitre confronted Albert Einstein. I never said LeMaitre's work was NOT A"preceded" by anybody else. I have no argument with that. But it is clearly irrelevant. Moreover, the relentless attacks on Christians by atheists, who call Christians "stupid" and "anti-scientific" makes LeMaitre's priesthood relevant. Were you honest, you would admit as much.

"Your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." - Albert Einstein to George LeMaitre in rejecting the Primordial Atom

Scientists wanted the Steady State Universe to be true. They rejected reality in favor of their secular dogma. The very idea of a Creator was something they tried to avoid, and bent their science to do so.

Or so you assert (without much evidence, yes, some people thought the Big Bang theory implied a creation and objected to that, but, essentially, their objections were mostly about the lack of evidence).

And, indeed, when more evidence were collected and the theory became more supported, it gained acceptance. Within a couple of decades, it was the consensus...

In contrast, creationists have had 150 years since Darwin, and many more evidence and still deny the validity of the theory, mostly based on lies and misunderstanding as you and Pahu have illustrated several times on this very thread by bringing your fallacious quote mines...

 

[John Jones]

Water is one such greenhouse gas. Have you seen the comparative IR spectra for CO2 and H2O? Yet global warming fraudsters present only the miniscule component of CO2. Shameful. Deceptive.

I have seen the comparative IR spectra for CO₂ and H₂O many hundreds of times.

Have you?

 

[Tubbythin]

George LeMaitre confronted Albert Einstein. I never said LeMaitre's work was NOT A"preceded" by anybody else. I have no argument with that. But it is clearly irrelevant.

You said the whole the "entire scientific community" rejected it. This is clearly not true. I don't agree that the fact that you are making factually false statements is irrelevant.

Moreover, the relentless attacks on Christians by atheists, who call Christians "stupid" and "anti-scientific" makes LeMaitre's priesthood relevant. Were you honest, you would admit as much.

Well, I believe there was some attempt to disparage "belief" in the big bang by some who preferred a steady state cosmology back around the 1960's. I have actively ridiculed those who choose to argue in a similar way on the science forum.
But the idea that there is some atheist agenda to relentlessly attack all Christians is nonesense. But those Christians who choose to ignore evidence in favour of a ~2000 year old book when it comes to science are (in my opinion) stupid and pretty much by definition are anti-scientific.

"Your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." - Albert Einstein to George LeMaitre in rejecting the Primordial Atom

Uhh-hmm. No mention of God or atheism in that quote. Your assertion that Einstein initially rejected the big bang cosmology because of atheist beliefs is still completely without support.

Scientists wanted the Steady State Universe to be true. They rejected reality in favor of their secular dogma.

Erm the Steady State Cosmology post-dates LeMaitre's work by about 2 decades. Long long after Einstein was "converted". And no, at least in most cases, they preffered one theory over another. The evidence in favour of the Big Bang over the Steady State didn't really come about till the 1960's.

The very idea of a Creator was something they tried to avoid, and bent their science to do so.

Not at all. Both theories were consistent with all the experimental data up until around the 1960's. Then there were various observations e.g. the distribution of cosmic radio sources and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation that clearly supported BB over SS. After that most scientists moved over to the BB camp. There were, as there always is, some hardened SS proponents. But far from being the entire scientific community, they were a dwindling minority.

Incredible that you should giggle over something so very trivial.
No that is NOT "it." I mention National Geographic because it is the most recent of many, many evolutionary frauds. Now giggle on that.

So you admit that National Geographic is not a scientific journal?

 

[Tubbythin]

Richard Dawkins uses the term "Darwinist" throughout his texts. I read the book by Michael Rose titled Darwinism Defended.

Does he? Still a stupid term if you ask me.

You are terribly uninformed about that which you pretend to know something about.

I know something about it. I don't proclaim to be an expert. And I don't, I hope, make wild claims I can't support about areas I barely understand.

You do not know the difference between "there" and "their" and you call others "stupid"?

I know the difference, the former is positional (roughly speaking), the latter possessive. I just happened to write the wrong one for some benign reason and not spell check before posting. What does this have to do with... anything?

And this is the place for "critical thinking"?

Are you inferring that because I used the wrong there/their/they're, I can't think critically?

If that were so, someone besides me would have corrected you.
That nobody else does illustrates how biased and anti-intellectual this entire forum truly is.

Huh? I'm lost. This forum is biased because nobody else corrected my spelling?

 

[temporalillusion]

Black humans are specifically "mentioned" and Darwin makes racist, degrading references to them.

Yeah I saw your incorrect quote, and I can appreciate why you would do what you did to support your position, but it's not convincing.

And even if it was, it's not relevant. Newton was an alchemist held some heretical religious beliefs, and sought after the Philosopher's Stone and the Elixer of Life. That doesn't matter one bit as to the veracity of his laws of motion and theory of gravity.

Do you understand that?

"No decent person wants to live in a society which works according to Darwinian laws.... A Darwinian society would be a Fascist state." - Richard Dawkins, Die Presse, July 30, 2005

You are conflating biological evolution with social Darwinism. Is this intentional or unintentional?

 

[Simon39759]

"No decent person wants to live in a society which works according to Darwinian laws.... A Darwinian society would be a Fascist state." - Richard Dawkins, Die Presse, July 30, 2005

That's silly, as other have mentioned, the Darwinian theory of evolution is but a (very successful) attempt at explaining the reality of nature, such as Ohm's law that somebody mentioned.
And it is not more an attempt to define politic than Ohm's law ever was.

In fact Darwin himself does explain so:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature

 

[Foster Zygote]

I guess JQ isn't going to explain the proper context of the slavery rules laid out in Exodus 21.

 

[154]

So it's OK for him to make up his mind but if I do it I'm close minded?

How long must I keep this open mind? How many years must I look without finding before I'm justified in reaching a conclusion?

I said "or not."



And since it, and my zingsmiley, was removed... ?, welcome aboard again, JonathanQuick
How did I know I loved you from your first post? Which is... umm... incidentally... also gone.

It's been fascinating to watch their response to and treatment of you. Watching it again, from outside this time, almost verbatim in so many ways.

While I doubt you'll tolerate such tedium for long, I hope you stick around and contend here regularly.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I said "or not."



And since it, and my zingsmiley, was removed... ?, welcome aboard again, JonathanQuick
How did I know I loved you from your first post? Which is... umm... incidentally... also gone.

It's been fascinating to watch their response to and treatment of you. Watching it again, from outside this time, almost verbatim in so many ways.

While I doubt you'll tolerate such tedium for long, I hope you stick around and contend here regularly.

I am not a fan of such vacuous smart arsery myself.

ETA: So what is the alternative to evolution, 154. Are you a believer in creation by divine fiat?