Rejecting evolution with science...

Swa said:
In what sense is that? DNA is very much a real code whether you want to believe it's created or not. There's "no-op" sequences to slow down encoding and align genes. Sequences to start and stop encoding. Sequences (previously thought to be dead) to control what sections are read. The only reason you don't want to acknowledge its complexity is because your natural process is only capable of simplicity.
Click to expand...
Are those shifting goalposts I see? Why, yes... yes they are. Your fallacious claim that "natural process is only capable of simplicity" was dealt with 6 months ago. But then it is standard operating procedure for the zealot to ignore correction and merrily continue relaying the same debunked bull****.

Swa said:
So they're openly encouraging it and not banning its teaching, giving it poor and biased reviews, ridiculing, censoring? http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Suppression_of_dissent_against_evolution Yeah it would be a nutbag conspiracy if it wasn't so open and obvious.
Click to expand...
A bit of butthurt on "A Storehouse of Knowledge, the encyclopædia with a biblical worldview"...? 'Spose that's the death knell to your attempts to cite credible sources, but hey... at least they're more honest about their a priori bias than you. Wookieepedia has an extensive article on Sith Magic - a much more real threat to society than the disregard and derision of poorly conceived ID nonsense.

ID isn't widely rejected because it portrays a dissenting view; it's widely rejected because it is scientifically unsound.

Swa said:
Yet you have been given peer-reviewed research saying the same things. The issue here isn't whether it's peer-reviewed or not or credible or not but only whether it conforms to your own views.
Click to expand...
Peer review is no magic bullet, and certainly no substitute for critical consideration. It's clear you expect others to do all the thinking for you, but that's no reason to assume everyone else shares your... disability.

Swa said:
I can see when someone makes a good point or two and don't need to discount it based on their other ideas, that's only your M.O.
Click to expand...
Good to see an admission of your propensity for cherry picking.

Swa said:
Then the hole will forever remain in your "theory." That is a problem for YOU.
Click to expand...
'Spose so, just as much as it will always remain a hole in literary theory. Oh, wait...
 
DJ... said:
That's asking me to assume merit in creation, which I don't. But to answer your strawman, no evolution doesn't disprove the possibility of creation. In the same way that it doesn't disprove alien intervention. Evolution doesn't infer the existence of aliens, nor does it infer the existence of creation.

Would you agree that the bible doesn't preclude the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Click to expand...
You don't have to assume the merit of creation to acknowledge that evolutionary explanations do not imply that creation is false (or true, it is simply irrelevant). It is no small matter I would argue. I think this is a point that many Christians actually do not acknowledge. I.e., I think it is many times the case that Christians have some sort of a knee-jerk reaction against evolution due to the misconception that it somehow implies that creation is false. I think you would get less of his ID nonsense if more Christians start to see that one can accept evolution and even abiogenesis while still being a creationist.

Does the Bible preclude the existence of a FSM? Lol no.

Zewp said:
AS DJ... said, in order to answer your question one would have to believe that the theory of creationism is anything other than bronze age superstition dragged into the 21st century by gullible people. Which I don't, because that's exactly what it is and there is not a shred of proof available to the contrary.

So no, evolution does not disprove creationism for the same reason that the bible does not disprove the existence of rainbow unicorns flying around in the clouds.
Click to expand...
You don't have to believe anything about creation (or the theory of creationism, whatever you think that is) to acknowledge that evolutionary explanations are irrelevant to the question of whether creation is true or false.
Btw, if you claim there is no evidence or proof for creation, I am pretty sure you some sort of definition or understanding of the concept of creation right? Do you?
 
oh great Dr Swa has now moved from a phD in pharmacology to a phD in biology :rolleyes: ... sigh and he thinks people are silent :confused: swa they not silent this is the internet no one is silent on the internet, its just that there arent any.

People are still going on about intelligent design really ? it was dismissed a long time ago and its founders where all shamed.

The complexity of life doesnt cut it nor does the mathematical odds of evolution matter. End of the day life is here and its debating why its here. If anything if you ask me the mathematics proves evolution.

Here is earth one planet orbiting around a single star in a system will 9 planets 5 dwarf planets 300 odd moons countless asteroids in a galaxy containing over 200 billion ( 200 000 000 000 ) systems just like it, in a universe containing just as many galaxies and there is life on ONE little blue ball (so far) ... i say the odds fit. Hasnt any religious person ever wondered that if god created everything there would be more life?

again evolution exists its shown and can be seen in real time. Evolution is a change in the genome that results in a change in the organism. Efflux channels support this view, in the scientific community (respectable one) there is NO debate whether evolution exists or not, there is debate on why it exists and how it works.

A common misconception is the common ancestor, every creature on earth is a modern creature they have evolved in parallel lines so the monkey turning into humans is retarded logic. Evolution is not hard to disprove and if it was wrong it wouldve been proven wrong a very long time ago, however it holds true to this day. People have been trying since darwin proposed it. Its called a phylogenetic tree and its mapped accordingly by people way more experience and knowledgeable in the field of biology

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Phylogenetic_Tree_of_Life.png

Its called a theory because scientists are educated and civil people and do it out of respect for culture. That wont last long

get over it your religion is BS your god is a phoney and your so called science claims are sad attempts to keep god in the seat of power. They are not part of science, ID got recognition because of school teachers teaching it in place of evolution and they were christian nut jobs. It got media attention BUT NOBODY in the field of biology has dismissed it. ID developers were a mathematician and an engineer, WTH they know about biology ? come now there is a reason you get specialists.

If i need advice on a mechanical system i will consult an engineer but he cant identify wild life. Hell I cant tell the difference between soil molds, to me mold is mold
 
Last edited:
RiaX said:
... i say the odds fit. Hasnt any religious person ever wondered that if god created everything there would be more life?
Click to expand...
The amount of life in the universe doesn't strike me to be a good argument for or against the existence of God. I don't understand why someone would think it might be. Sure, I think any person wonders about this question and I think the most reasonable answer is "it is an interesting question, I am not sure how it can be answered".

RiaX said:
get over it your religion is BS your god is a phoney and your so called science claims are sad attempts to keep god in the seat of power. They are not part of science, ID got recognition because of school teachers teaching it in place of evolution and they were christian nut jobs. It got media attention BUT NOBODY in the field of biology has dismissed it. ID developers were a mathematician and an engineer, WTH they know about biology ? come now there is a reason you get specialists.

If i need advice on a mechanical system i will consult an engineer but he cant identify wild life. Hell I cant tell the difference between soil molds, to me mold is mold
Click to expand...
You like to make these claims, surely you have some sort of definition or understanding for the concept of "God". Do you? Send a PM :).
 
Techne said:
You like to make these claims, surely you have some sort of definition or understanding for the concept of "God". Do you? Send a PM :).
Click to expand...
36492627.jpg
 
porchrat said:
Agreed. WTF moment there.

It is a theory because it is a theory. It isn't going to graduate from being a theory, that isn't how scientific theories work.
Click to expand...

No. The Theory of evolution is a theory. The concept of evolution is not. They are two completely different things, people often confuse them to be the same
 
RiaX said:
No. The Theory of evolution is a theory. The concept of evolution is not. They are two completely different things, people often confuse them to be the same
Click to expand...
Didn't realise you were talking about evolution itself there. Your post didn't make it clear through context. No worries though. I agree with you on that one.
 
Ekstasis said:
@DJ, the complexity of life on molecular level especially in DNA and the various RNA structures makes the idea of NS preposterous. This "process"/"force" cannot possibly have forward knowledge of how to handle these complex machinery in order to bring about precise results.

Mathematicians like David Berlinski worked out that it's impossible for NS to be a sufficient agent for this.
Click to expand...
Hell in a handbasket Eks this is just getting ridiculous now.

Natural selection doesn't have forward knowledge and it doesn't produce precise results, it produces billions upon billions of evolutionary dead-ends. The absolute minority of life actually survives and the vast majority goes extinct. How the fsck is that precise?!?

Go read a fscking book on the subject because right now your ignorance is embarrassing.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you think natural selection is that you think it could stop happening if the first unit of life complete with DNA and RNA and all the regulatory proteins and glycoproteins were magicked up by your deity as opposed to forming from inorganic constituents via entirely natural processes.
 
Last edited:
HapticSimian said:
Are those shifting goalposts I see? Why, yes... yes they are. Your fallacious claim that "natural process is only capable of simplicity" was dealt with 6 months ago. But then it is standard operating procedure for the zealot to ignore correction and merrily continue relaying the same debunked bull****.
Click to expand...
You yourself claim here it's a simple process. Any and all attempts to show this simple process being capable of generating the complexity has failed. Why do you think that is? What you want to call the code is irrelevant as everything we see indicates it can't generate its contents.

HapticSimian said:
A bit of butthurt on "A Storehouse of Knowledge, the encyclopædia with a biblical worldview"...? 'Spose that's the death knell to your attempts to cite credible sources, but hey... at least they're more honest about their a priori bias than you. Wookieepedia has an extensive article on Sith Magic - a much more real threat to society than the disregard and derision of poorly conceived ID nonsense.

ID isn't widely rejected because it portrays a dissenting view; it's widely rejected because it is scientifically unsound.
Click to expand...
Nothing to refute then that it's being suppressed. It doesn't matter why you think it should be. Rest just doesn't make any sense.

HapticSimian said:
Peer review is no magic bullet, and certainly no substitute for critical consideration. It's clear you expect others to do all the thinking for you, but that's no reason to assume everyone else shares your... disability.
Click to expand...
I never claimed peer-review to have any merit, in fact I even said before it doesn't. You on the other hand did. So you complain one way and the other. Just enforces my point.

HapticSimian said:
Good to see an admission of your propensity for cherry picking.
Click to expand...
Try to twist things to your "reality" all you like I don't have to either deny good arguments or accept everything a person says. Claiming so is irrational but I don't expect anything less from you. In one breath you say I can't think critically and in the next you say I shouldn't. :wtf:


Oh I see RiaX has laid his egg too. Resorting to irrelevancies, ad hominems, not addressing the points, etc. Can we get a real proper tree? Oh wait wrong question, there aren't any, there are many DIFFERENT ones nobody agreeing on anything. Oh well it's back to reality and away from the evolution fairytale I guess. :whistle:
 
lol basically he sprouts nonsense thinking he is clever. Then he changes the topic some what then later tells you not to change the topic when you respond to his nonsense.

Then he keeps going on about ad hominems when he cant answer your points. Its a "lalalalalala" attitude a 4 year old uses.

He thinks he is clever but he knows f all science nor can he read
 
Says the person who uses ad hominems and other fallacies instead of facts, rants about something irrelevant instead of addressing the topic, shouts WRONG but then states the exact same thing, and rambles on so nobody can actually understand his sentences.
 
see told you "ad hominems" again ... its in like every post :whistle:
 
I'm still waiting for you to justify why doctors charge what they do without resorting to irrelevancies like separately charged procedures. :D
 
see told you it now derails the thread trying to be clever.

Its a generic step by step guide for idiots

really now swa its getting old and annoying. What exactly has that got to do with evolution ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X