Rejecting evolution with science...

RiaX, kindly place Swa on your ignore list. We're trying this thing where we want to see if he'll take his idiocy and go away if we all just ignore him.
 
Minor mutations in life forms sure, but progressive development of new species from one common ancestral cell through an unguided force called "natural selection"? This science???? Evolution ito Darwin's Origin of species is utter speculation and by no means science.

In fact evolution has to do with what happened after the first form of live appeared - a cell. Current hypothesis suggests that this organic life form developed from inorganic matter. Where's the experiments confirming this horse manure? Now I'm no biologist but apparently one would need at minimum 250 proteins to have some form of life. Proteins are very very simple entities, right? RIGHT??
 
"Modern science is not a democratic process".. hahahaha! Meaning, one is not allowed to consider any alternatives for the development of life other than ToE. Sounds pretty much like science is a dictator in this age
 
Evolutionists are sending out a bad message to religious people who's actually interested in science. This is not about science anymore it's about an attack on religion.

I'm still convinced that there's a broader "dictatorship" in the science world. Many scientists will not say what they really think about the flaws in evolution in public due to fear for damaging their careers, not getting government grants etc. The media, government and scientific institutions are all involved in this.

How dare anyone insist on the freedom to suggest an alternative to ToE?
 
It's because of the milestones reached in science such as the magnificent complexity of the cell. Something Darwin didn't and couldn't take into consideration when he postulated this theory. Poor bastard..
 
Ekstasis said:
Minor mutations in life forms sure, but progressive development of new species from one common ancestral cell through an unguided force called "natural selection"? This science???? Evolution ito Darwin's Origin of species is utter speculation and by no means science.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything that suggests why millions upon millions of these minor mutations wouldn't result in something so far removed from the original that it would be deemed another species altogether?

Furthermore do you have any scientific way of explaining the observations made so far with regards to things like ERVs and chromosomal fusion that doesn't include the concept of evolution?

I mean I see a lot of bold statements with not much to actually back it all up, just your utterly worthless layman's opinion. Considering that you are a layman who seems to think that if your deity created the first reproducible unit of life then that would suddenly mean things like natural selection don't occur calling you a layman is probably an insult to layman.


In fact evolution has to do with what happened after the first form of live appeared - a cell. Current hypothesis suggests that this organic life form developed from inorganic matter. Where's the experiments confirming this horse manure? Now I'm no biologist but apparently one would need at minimum 250 proteins to have some form of life. Proteins are very very simple entities, right? RIGHT??
Click to expand...
There are no experiments confirming it. That is why it is called a hypothesis and not a theory. It is a proposed explanation that still needs rigorous testing. Duh.

Are you scientifically illiterate? I ask because you clearly don't know what the word hypothesis means. Why are you using words like hypothesis when you don't know what they mean? It makes you look rather foolish.
 
Ekstasis said:
Evolutionists are sending out a bad message to religious people who's actually interested in science. This is not about science anymore it's about an attack on religion.

I'm still convinced that there's a broader "dictatorship" in the science world. Many scientists will not say what they really think about the flaws in evolution in public due to fear for damaging their careers, not getting government grants etc. The media, government and scientific institutions are all involved in this.

How dare anyone insist on the freedom to suggest an alternative to ToE?
Click to expand...

You cant be serious :erm:
 
Ekstasis said:
Evolutionists are sending out a bad message to religious people who's actually interested in science. This is not about science anymore it's about an attack on religion.
Click to expand...
No evolution has nothing to do with religion. There are millions upon millions of religious people out there who reconcile their religion with the theory of evolution. Only biblical literalist nutjobs have a problem with evolution.

You are the one fighting, not religion in general. Please don't confuse opposition to your particular brand of crazy anti-science crackpottery with opposition to religion. Techne is religious for example and he also accepts evolution.


I'm still convinced that there's a broader "dictatorship" in the science world. Many scientists will not say what they really think about the flaws in evolution in public due to fear for damaging their careers, not getting government grants etc. The media, government and scientific institutions are all involved in this.

How dare anyone insist on the freedom to suggest an alternative to ToE?
Click to expand...
There is no scientifically valid alternative ATM and no real death blow has been dealt to the theory of evolution yet despite the rigorous testing it has undergone over the last 150+ years.

You reject evolution because of your particular kookoo brand of anti-science biblical literalism. That ISN'T a scientific alternative to evolution. Get over it.

If I recall correctly this is not the first time you have presented this tinfoil hat conspiracy garbage about science being a dictatorship in which anyone attempting to present alternatives to evolution was obliterated. We all tore you to shreds and eventually you stopped commenting altogether in that thread being unable to counter the well formed points being raised against your lunacy. Please don't go down this road again man. You will more than likely be embarrassed again as your stance is irrational.
 
Question porchrat. Who decides what is scientific inquiry and what is not? Even in forming an hypothesis. What makes the hypothesis of inorganic matter creating organic life less/more plausible than ID (which can be inferred in DNA coded information btw)?
 
Ekstasis said:
Question porchrat. Who decides what is scientific inquiry and what is not? Even in forming an hypothesis. What makes the hypothesis of inorganic matter creating organic life less/more plausible than ID (which can be inferred in DNA coded information btw)?
Click to expand...

Experiments like the Urey-Miller experiment show that there is something worth investigating further. ID hasn't formulated anything worth taking seriously, ever. It fails on the evidence, and it fails on the logic. You're inferring ID from DNA 'code' because it fits your religious beliefs, not because there's any rational or evidential reason to do so.
 
Ekstasis said:
Question porchrat. Who decides what is scientific inquiry and what is not? Even in forming an hypothesis. What makes the hypothesis of inorganic matter creating organic life less/more plausible than ID (which can be inferred in DNA coded information btw)?
Click to expand...
Nobody decides. The nature of the proposed hypothesis determines whether or not it is scientific and scientists spend their lives training their minds to present their hypothesis in a scientific manner. Read up on this stuff dude. If you weren't scientifically illiterate you would know this. Heck you can find this stuff out with 5 minutes on Wikipedia. There is no excuse for this level of ignorance from you. I don't know if you are lazy or you purposefully wish to remain ignorant but it is not a side of you that I respect.
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
Nobody decides. The nature of the proposed hypothesis determines whether or not it is scientific and scientists spend their lives training their minds to present their hypothesis in a scientific manner. Read up on this stuff dude. If you weren't scientifically illiterate you would know this. Heck you can find this stuff out with 5 minutes on Wikipedia. There is no excuse for this level of ignorance from you. I don't know if you are lazy or you purposefully wish to remain ignorant but it is not a side of you that I respect.
Click to expand...
Just checking. So if you're not an evolutionist shut the fek up! That what you're saying?
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Experiments like the Urey-Miller experiment show that there is something worth investigating further. ID hasn't formulated anything worth taking seriously, ever. It fails on the evidence, and it fails on the logic. You're inferring ID from DNA 'code' because it fits your religious beliefs, not because there's any rational or evidential reason to do so.
Click to expand...
Agreed on that last point. The inferences made all come from some completely subjective idea of what designeyness in DNA would look like because we as humans write code in a particular fashion. It makes no sense to investigate something in that manner. We simply have nothing to compare life against to measure the degree of designeyness.

I once had this discussion with someone, it may even have been Eks but I think it was empirex who was another ID advocate (surprise surprise). It was hilarious. He started pulling random numbers out of his ass. He said if 30% or more of the junk DNA actually did something then that was an accurate yardstick for determining that that thing was designed. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. These ID people are such meatheads. They have just replaced their religious rhetoric with something that has a thing veneer of objectivity and throws around some sciencey sounding words. Unfortunately for them it hasn't fooled anyone. :D
 
porchrat said:
Unfortunately for them it hasn't fooled anyone. :D
Click to expand...
Sure about that? Even Richard Dawkins once said in an interview that the possibility of an higher intelligence seeding the earth with some form of life cannot be eliminated as a possibility. Does that make him looney or does that give him freedom of opinion?
 
Ekstasis said:
Sure about that? Even Richard Dawkins once said in an interview that the possibility of an higher intelligence seeding the earth with some form of life cannot be eliminated as a possibility. Does that make him looney or does that give him freedom of opinion?
Click to expand...

Link? You sure it wasn't a russels teapot argument?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X