Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
Some people can't read...
See, nobody denies that string theory hasn't been tested, I will be the first one to point this out because the scientific principle is what rules my life.
The point was that you claimed M-theory was invented to circumvent the problem with the Big Bang and "creation ex nihilo" which was an open lie.
The other point was that string theory, even as a mathematical exercise makes much more sense than any religion because it is based on calculations of real things, not a holy book...
I hope you are able to grasp the difference...
OK:
1. Creationists claim: scientists have never managed to create life in the lab, although they (<10 labs) have tried for 50 years (Nature had several hundred millions and the lab was the size of the planet).
2. When scientists make progress towards reproducing the steps of abiogenesis, creationists dismiss is at "being done in the lab"...
Great logic....
What is important is that self-replicating molecules can be produced by random chemistry. Whether it's in the lab doesn't matter. To dismiss lab experiments on the basis of them being done in the lab means to reject 95% of all science....
From the point where self-replicating molecules that could be subject to natural selection and genetic drift appeared
LOL, these are exactly arguments from ignorance...
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic
Did you read it?
The whole message of the IDiots is simple: evolution didn't happen. They do not say anything else. Most importantly, they do not say what happened. It is not hard to guess what they think happened (Goddidit), that's why they lost in Dover.
I don't think you want to believe people who can't propose anything positive and constructive and are solely occupied with rejecting one of the most sound scientific theories
A person who's more knowledgeable of the subject than you are
Nobody ever said self-replicating molecules appeared only once. In fact there are many many different sequences that can self-replicate and they could obviously appear all the time, especially if we can reproduce in lab conditions today.
The fact is that they did survived so there is no point in arguing why. There were plenty of them available for evolution to begin for sure...
I have no answers to how exactly the process of evolution produced life in its present form. I can outline the major steps and make some educated guesses about what happened biochemically. I can't know the whole process and it will take quite a long time before (if ever) we know all the details.
In case you don't know we're talking about events that happened 4 billion years ago, didn't leave any traces and we can only guess about what happened from what we see in today's organisms. Moreover, we started answering these questions not that long ago. It is extremely dishonest to say ""You don't know all the details, this means Goddidit"
BTW where did God come from before he created the universe? Do you have an answer?
well, your argument was empty and proving nothing else but your ignorance, I just exposed it
Where is the evidence that "he/she/it isn't made up"?
I can give you evidence for the contrary...
See, nobody denies that string theory hasn't been tested, I will be the first one to point this out because the scientific principle is what rules my life.
The point was that you claimed M-theory was invented to circumvent the problem with the Big Bang and "creation ex nihilo" which was an open lie.
The other point was that string theory, even as a mathematical exercise makes much more sense than any religion because it is based on calculations of real things, not a holy book...
I hope you are able to grasp the difference...
OK:
1. Creationists claim: scientists have never managed to create life in the lab, although they (<10 labs) have tried for 50 years (Nature had several hundred millions and the lab was the size of the planet).
2. When scientists make progress towards reproducing the steps of abiogenesis, creationists dismiss is at "being done in the lab"...
Great logic....
What is important is that self-replicating molecules can be produced by random chemistry. Whether it's in the lab doesn't matter. To dismiss lab experiments on the basis of them being done in the lab means to reject 95% of all science....
From the point where self-replicating molecules that could be subject to natural selection and genetic drift appeared
LOL, these are exactly arguments from ignorance...
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic
Did you read it?
The whole message of the IDiots is simple: evolution didn't happen. They do not say anything else. Most importantly, they do not say what happened. It is not hard to guess what they think happened (Goddidit), that's why they lost in Dover.
I don't think you want to believe people who can't propose anything positive and constructive and are solely occupied with rejecting one of the most sound scientific theories
A person who's more knowledgeable of the subject than you are
^^What removed the bad variance? Haha, you dumb ass, selection only works if the species doesn't get wiped out and if there is enough of them to select from, you obviously misunderstood as you always do. You're simply assuming that it's a given that the first assemblages of life somehow survived on its own to keep producing offspring(subsequently allowing selection), which is very improbable even if you consider that life was even able to assemble its self in the first place! You have no answers.
The fact is that they did survived so there is no point in arguing why. There were plenty of them available for evolution to begin for sure...
I have no answers to how exactly the process of evolution produced life in its present form. I can outline the major steps and make some educated guesses about what happened biochemically. I can't know the whole process and it will take quite a long time before (if ever) we know all the details.
In case you don't know we're talking about events that happened 4 billion years ago, didn't leave any traces and we can only guess about what happened from what we see in today's organisms. Moreover, we started answering these questions not that long ago. It is extremely dishonest to say ""You don't know all the details, this means Goddidit"
BTW where did God come from before he created the universe? Do you have an answer?
well, your argument was empty and proving nothing else but your ignorance, I just exposed it
There is no evidence that doesn't support an ultimate creator and there is plenty of evidence the he/she/it isn't made up(mocking you to show that this argument has no substance and anyone can use it)..
Stop lying!
Stop lying!
I can give you evidence for the contrary...
See, the existence of imagination is perfectly explainable in evolutionary terms, it is obviously selectively advantageous to be creative, if we hadn't developed imagination, our ancestors would not have made tools that allowed them to survive and we would not have built the world we live in today. There is nothing immaterial and unexplainable, these are just complex cognitive functions which will be completely understood in great anatomical, cellular and molecular detail in this century
It doesnt matter, becuase it is someones OPINION that evolution is a fact and its an OPINION that someone believes god exists.
Know one knows the truth because no one was ALIVE (now) when the earth "came to be".
I donthave to pick anything...like i said, I dont know for sure what happened cus i wasn there when the earth came to be.
Know one knows the truth because no one was ALIVE (now) when the earth "came to be".
I donthave to pick anything...like i said, I dont know for sure what happened cus i wasn there when the earth came to be.
What life? And if this is the case, why are you defending a theory that not even scientists deem to be credible by "scientific standards"? Is it because it is a convenience to your predefined ideas of the world, which is the root of your intellectual stagnation?
Liar.. I never claimed such a thing, I said that all natural laws brake down towards the point of the singularity approaching the big bang, "which is why we have something called M-theory to explain it". With "it" referring to pre-big bang phenomena in this context, though it seeks to stand as a "theory of "everything".. Stop mis-quoting..
String theory makes just as much sense as your life and you obviously know nothing about string theory nor have you reviewed the quotes posted as string theory calculates nothing that is measurable! Any book that describes "real" events should be seen as more reliable to any sane extroverted person.
..
Yes, the difference in IQ..
What does this prove for the evolutionists?
Intelligent design with in its proper context..
Thank you..
Has this been observed?
Yes it does..
Red herring.
So who "designed" these pre-assembled molecules?
They don't have to say anything else, they see flaws in your theory and counter arguments are going to expected, they are still adamant about their position, as are the evolution nuts.
The only reason that they lost at Dover is because the propagandists convinced the judge that ID was merely a religion, which violates the constitution, but has nothing to do with the soundness of the arguments supporting each position, judges uphold laws.
Not a good reason to reject their criticisms.
Which says nothing since you're constantly appealing to authority and aren't "knowledgeable" about anything else.
Do you realize that in your attempt to defend evolution, you've made a mockery out of it by suggesting this? This would mean, as a consequence that we all do not derive from a common origin, yet this is exactly what your theory states. You're a blundering fool and should maybe let some other evolution junky step up as spokesperson, no?..
Not an answer as to how and why sane minds should believe that.
I also know how a computer works and can make a few short-span predictions, but this means nothing since (unless I'm told) I can't figure out who made it.
But it isn't dishonest to say based on this that (relatively and metaphorically speaking) "You don't know anything, so don't criticize what I believe".
Why would he/she/it have to come from anywhere if you yourself believe that the universe its self has no beginning? Isn't that just as illogical to the pattern seeking human mind? Time and space is a creation my confused friend..
My rebuttal was sound and you have exposed nothing but your own false delusions of grander.
^^The evidence is the lack of evidence to the contrary, by Paley's model of the watchmaker.
Liar.. I never claimed such a thing, I said that all natural laws brake down towards the point of the singularity approaching the big bang, "which is why we have something called M-theory to explain it". With "it" referring to pre-big bang phenomena in this context, though it seeks to stand as a "theory of "everything".. Stop mis-quoting..
String theory makes just as much sense as your life and you obviously know nothing about string theory nor have you reviewed the quotes posted as string theory calculates nothing that is measurable! Any book that describes "real" events should be seen as more reliable to any sane extroverted person.
..
Yes, the difference in IQ..
What does this prove for the evolutionists?
Intelligent design with in its proper context..
Thank you..
Has this been observed?
Yes it does..
Red herring.
So who "designed" these pre-assembled molecules?
They don't have to say anything else, they see flaws in your theory and counter arguments are going to expected, they are still adamant about their position, as are the evolution nuts.
The only reason that they lost at Dover is because the propagandists convinced the judge that ID was merely a religion, which violates the constitution, but has nothing to do with the soundness of the arguments supporting each position, judges uphold laws.
Not a good reason to reject their criticisms.
Which says nothing since you're constantly appealing to authority and aren't "knowledgeable" about anything else.
Do you realize that in your attempt to defend evolution, you've made a mockery out of it by suggesting this? This would mean, as a consequence that we all do not derive from a common origin, yet this is exactly what your theory states. You're a blundering fool and should maybe let some other evolution junky step up as spokesperson, no?..
Not an answer as to how and why sane minds should believe that.
I also know how a computer works and can make a few short-span predictions, but this means nothing since (unless I'm told) I can't figure out who made it.
But it isn't dishonest to say based on this that (relatively and metaphorically speaking) "You don't know anything, so don't criticize what I believe".
Why would he/she/it have to come from anywhere if you yourself believe that the universe its self has no beginning? Isn't that just as illogical to the pattern seeking human mind? Time and space is a creation my confused friend..
My rebuttal was sound and you have exposed nothing but your own false delusions of grander.
^^The evidence is the lack of evidence to the contrary, by Paley's model of the watchmaker.
I am defending it because it has a very good theoretical basis, whether you understand it or not is not my problem
This is exactly the claim I attacked, but anyway, it is pointless to argue with an IDiot...
The bible described real events only? Wow... what about Flood, Noah's Ark, Resurrection, miracles and so on? These are real, right?
anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_string_theory
don't embarrass yourself
are you going to say something constructive or not?
Human stupidity is the most infinite thing in the universe, you know?
When you spent months trying to pour the idea that there is no designer of life into the empty head (there should be plenty of space for ideas there, right) of some cretin and in the end he asks you "who designed these pre-assembled molecules", you know there is no hope for this world...
Did you visit the link and read thoroughly what was there?
No, right?
Every argument of the IDiots have been thoroughly refuted and has revealed nothing else about the world other than the fact that people who reject evolution tend not to understand biology and science in general
The judge was a conservative christian and a republican. Interesting, huh?
Their criticisms have been scientifically rejected elsewhere, my point was whether this is a good reason to believe them
ParkBoyz, I have told you millions of times:
You don't know shit about biology, you lack basic understanding of evolutionary theory, you lack basic education natural sciences and you know absolutely nothing about modern molecular biology and how it combines with and remodels Darwin's ideas to form the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution.
Yet, you are ready to buy everything that the ID frauds tell you, just because it fits with your religious views.
The reason I am the person who you have to trust about evolution is because the thousands of scientists independently from each other have come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact and have built a theory to explain its mechanisms. All the evidence and all the advancement of biological, chemical and Earth sciences in the last 150 years have only confirmed the fact of evolution and the accuracy of the theory and new evidence is testing it every day. I stand on the shoulders of these people. If you don't believe me, trust those thousands of scientists who spent their life building the theory. The two things are equivalent. BTW many of these scientists were believers....
Natural selection, anyone?
I wish you could ever read your post from the position of an educated person with a decent IQ and realize how idiotic it is...
If you only for a second stop seeing a designer everywhere, then you learn a sufficient amount of chemistry and molecular biology, you will see why no designer was needed for life to appear.
I don't believe in anything, stop applying your religious labels to everyone and everything. I look at the facts and I know how to interpret them and test my theories. You don't know the facts and you don't know how to test theories.
Do you have an answer or not?
This is exactly the claim I attacked, but anyway, it is pointless to argue with an IDiot...
The bible described real events only? Wow... what about Flood, Noah's Ark, Resurrection, miracles and so on? These are real, right?
anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_string_theory
don't embarrass yourself
are you going to say something constructive or not?
Thank you..
Has this been observed?
Has this been observed?
When you spent months trying to pour the idea that there is no designer of life into the empty head (there should be plenty of space for ideas there, right) of some cretin and in the end he asks you "who designed these pre-assembled molecules", you know there is no hope for this world...
Did you visit the link and read thoroughly what was there?
No, right?
Every argument of the IDiots have been thoroughly refuted and has revealed nothing else about the world other than the fact that people who reject evolution tend not to understand biology and science in general
The judge was a conservative christian and a republican. Interesting, huh?
Their criticisms have been scientifically rejected elsewhere, my point was whether this is a good reason to believe them
ParkBoyz, I have told you millions of times:
You don't know shit about biology, you lack basic understanding of evolutionary theory, you lack basic education natural sciences and you know absolutely nothing about modern molecular biology and how it combines with and remodels Darwin's ideas to form the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution.
Yet, you are ready to buy everything that the ID frauds tell you, just because it fits with your religious views.
The reason I am the person who you have to trust about evolution is because the thousands of scientists independently from each other have come to the conclusion that evolution is a fact and have built a theory to explain its mechanisms. All the evidence and all the advancement of biological, chemical and Earth sciences in the last 150 years have only confirmed the fact of evolution and the accuracy of the theory and new evidence is testing it every day. I stand on the shoulders of these people. If you don't believe me, trust those thousands of scientists who spent their life building the theory. The two things are equivalent. BTW many of these scientists were believers....
Natural selection, anyone?
I wish you could ever read your post from the position of an educated person with a decent IQ and realize how idiotic it is...
If you only for a second stop seeing a designer everywhere, then you learn a sufficient amount of chemistry and molecular biology, you will see why no designer was needed for life to appear.
I don't believe in anything, stop applying your religious labels to everyone and everything. I look at the facts and I know how to interpret them and test my theories. You don't know the facts and you don't know how to test theories.
Do you have an answer or not?