• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

It's amusing how creationists critic Darwin for his alleged racism and yet embrace Blyth unquestionably...

To summarize, Blyth, as Darwin fully acknowledged, had some great insight, but view natural selection as a mean to keep organism true to a divinely ordered type... It is Darwin's tremendous foresight to link this to changes in the environment as well as imagining the existence of random mutations; therefore making the concept the motor of 'transformism' rather than a hindrance to it...

As for Wallace, the mistake has been pointed out to Pahu before, once again, he sees fit to ignore it, proving that he is not here to learn or engage in an honest exchange of idea but rather to preach.
I know it is against the spirit of the forum but is there a formal rule against spamming copy-pasted stuff without making contribution of your own?


By the way, Here is an article on Blyth and Darwin and the creationists' lies on the subject...
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Quick question: why are creationists, who are the ones with the least knowledge of evolution, always trying to educate people on what evolution is ? Shouldn't you, like, study or something ?
Click to expand...

Answer(s):

1. Where did I call myself a "creationist"? Please cite the thread.
Your assumption constitutes an unwarranted attack.
You use the term as a pejorative, but when I call you or others "Darwinists," there is great umbrage taken. I didn't initiate the term. It is widely used, by Richard Dawkins, and many other biologists.

2. My recital of the fraud of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings was intended to bring to your attention the profound length of time between the DISCOVERY of his fraud, and the CESSATION of the academic community to desist in acceptance OF this fraud.

Shouldn't you, like, read about what I said, and consider it carefully?

It wasn't that hard.
 
I Am The Scum said:
So is the argument now, "Darwin was a jerk, therefore evolution is false?"
Click to expand...

"Critical thinker"

"I'm using logic. Deal with it."

Well, no you are NOT "using logic."
And putting YOUR words into the mouths of other people is NOT "critical" thinking.

Darwinism is almost a religion, and the slightest criticism, or questioning of Darwinism, macro-evolution, call it what you like, INSTANTLY brings not thoughtful responses, not consideration, not tolerance, but rather condescension, lies, and distortions such as that quoted above.

This quote above is shameful, it is reprehensible, but it is emphatically NOT science.
 
JonathanQuick said:
"...Darwinism is almost a religion, and the slightest criticism, or questioning of Darwinism, macro-evolution, call it what you like, INSTANTLY brings not thoughtful responses, not consideration, not tolerance, but rather condescension, lies, and distortions such as that quoted above.

..
Click to expand...

Maybe you just take everything the wrong way. :)
 
Pahu,
Are you aware that genes can be added in the Natural Selection process?

Sometimes, during replication, a gene will get duplicated. And, that dupe could mutate or change in other ways. When that happens you have two genes where formerly there was only one.
We even discovered transposons, or "jumping genes", that have a knack for duplicating themselves within a genome, over time.

Also, in perhaps rare cases, horizontal gene transfer can occur: A virus or other mechanism can literally insert new genes into a germ-line genome, which can also increase the number of genes.

The number of DNA fragments that make up what we consider to be a gene tends to vary. (Sometimes they even overlap each other.) Over time the number "genes" could increase because their DNA sections end up getting split into two or more separately-acting regions. So, the number of DNA fragments remains the same, but the number of "genes" goes up.

Etc.

Those are all very basic descriptions, which leave out a lot of details. But, it is important to acknowledge these sorts of things: The creationist argument that evolution can not create new genes or new "information" or whatever is factually inaccurate.
 
JonathanQuick said:
And putting YOUR words into the mouths of other people is NOT "critical" thinking.
Click to expand...
Says the person who blindly asserted, providing not one shred of evidence to support his argument, that Einstein (and others) ignored the Big Bang model for (anti-)religious reasons.

Darwinism is almost a religion,
Click to expand...
No it isn't. What religion is backed up by an extensive fossil record and 4.5 billion year geological record, half a century of study of DNA...

and the slightest criticism, or questioning of Darwinism, macro-evolution, call it what you like, INSTANTLY brings not thoughtful responses, not consideration, not tolerance, but rather condescension, lies, and distortions such as that quoted above.
Click to expand...
Actually it's bought an amazing range of thoughtful responses. The condescending responses have come when the denialists have posted easily debunked lies, blind assertions about the characters and views of individuals, arguments that are self-contradictory and claims of an utterly impossible global floods.

This quote above is shameful, it is reprehensible, but it is emphatically NOT science.
Click to expand...
Says the person who blindly asserted that Einstein (and others) ignored the Big Bang model for (anti-)religious reasons.
 
JonathanQuick said:
1. Where did I call myself a "creationist"? Please cite the thread.
Click to expand...

For someone who likes to call what others say "assumptions", you sure don't read very well. Where did I say you called yourself a creationist ?

You use the term as a pejorative
Click to expand...

Yes, "creationist" is not an indication that the person being labeled so has much education or brain power.

but when I call you or others "Darwinists," there is great umbrage taken.
Click to expand...

That's because we know Darwin isn't the final authority on evolution.

Shouldn't you, like, read about what I said, and consider it carefully?

It wasn't that hard.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try harder, then.

I repeat my question: if you know so little about evolution, why do you try to educate others on that subject ?
 
JonathanQuick said:
Answer(s):
2. My recital of the fraud of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings was intended to bring to your attention the profound length of time between the DISCOVERY of his fraud, and the CESSATION of the academic community to desist in acceptance OF this fraud.
Click to expand...
Would you mind answering these questions?
joobz said:
So let's have a game change.

Instead of labeling "2" sides in this debate,let's define each individual as a separate opinion. A fully autonomous entity capable of reaching their own conclusions.

Which points do you feel are evidence against evolution?

So far, you have presented an example of fraud in embryology photos. I agree and fully concede that these drawings are not evidence in support of evolution.

now, do you believe that this fraud invalidates other evidence as well? If so, why?
Click to expand...
 
Tubbythin said:
Actually it's bought an amazing range of thoughtful responses. The condescending responses have come when the denialists have posted easily debunked lies, blind assertions about the characters and views of individuals, arguments that are self-contradictory and claims of an utterly impossible global floods.
Click to expand...
And don't forget when they're shown that their material is lies/misquotes/distortions they refuse to change.
 
JonathanQuick said:
This quote above is shameful, it is reprehensible, but it is emphatically NOT science.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to me that it is pretending to be. It is, however, logical. It points out the logical fallacy inherent in attacking evolution through an attack of Darwin's character.




P.S. I'm still very much interested in learning the proper context for interpreting Exodus 21.
 
Last edited:
JonathanQuick said:
"Critical thinker"

"I'm using logic. Deal with it."

Well, no you are NOT "using logic."
And putting YOUR words into the mouths of other people is NOT "critical" thinking.

Darwinism is almost a religion, and the slightest criticism, or questioning of Darwinism, macro-evolution, call it what you like, INSTANTLY brings not thoughtful responses, not consideration, not tolerance, but rather condescension, lies, and distortions such as that quoted above.

This quote above is shameful, it is reprehensible, but it is emphatically NOT science.
Click to expand...

I would like to learn more. Tell me what you got out of Pahu's above post. Tell me the argument he is making. Illustrate to me whether or not it supports his case that "science disproves evolution," and if so, how?

Because what I got out of the post was one giant ad hominem argument. This is a formal logical fallacy in which it is asserted that a proposition is false based on the character of the one proposing it (but you knew that, because you're an expert in logic). This was the point of my post, perhaps expressed too poetically. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

So please, show me the error in my logic.
 
JonathanQuick said:
"Critical thinker"

"I'm using logic. Deal with it."

Well, no you are NOT "using logic."
And putting YOUR words into the mouths of other people is NOT "critical" thinking.

Darwinism is almost a religion, and the slightest criticism, or questioning of Darwinism, macro-evolution, call it what you like, INSTANTLY brings not thoughtful responses, not consideration, not tolerance, but rather condescension, lies, and distortions such as that quoted above.

This quote above is shameful, it is reprehensible, but it is emphatically NOT science.
Click to expand...

Um, no, it's not, because what Pahu was saying was not. Pahu posted something entirely irrelevant to the subject. IATS was pointing that out.

JonathanQuick said:
He asked when "was LIFE created in the lab."

Your links cite "artificial life NEARLY created" and "molecule evolves".


Neither link answers his question of "WHEN was life created in the lab."
Click to expand...

Actually, they do, unless you think that there is more to the definition of life than self-replication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom