Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 731 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 556,255
Pageviews Today: 653,577Threads Today: 73Posts Today: 1,544
07:51 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

 
589

User ID: 76827564
Netherlands
08/09/2018 03:50 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
gotta be crazy to believe we come from monkeys etc.. imo
 Quoting: T-Man


And the monkey came from a fish 10 trillion years ago chuckle

The oldest civilization is only around 10k years old actually. At max, its probably less, not taking into account possible calculating errors etc

Take a guess where it started

Last Edited by 589 on 08/09/2018 03:53 PM
Harry The Dog

User ID: 52680061
United States
08/09/2018 04:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
And my largest frustration in any debate is how the subject matter gets framed.

Darwin's book was titled "The Origin Of Species." He postulated that evolution within a species somehow leads to THE CREATION OF NEW SPECIES. Over time we have all accepted that EVOLUTION is real. AND IT IS! Humans in sunny, hot environments are very different from humans in cold, sun-starved environments.

Evolution within species is undeniable; however, evolution as a means of explaining origins of new species is ludicrous.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Fuck are you talking about?
We see new species developing all the time and we know how various different species arose over million of years.

Creationists say the dumbest things.

Why would you say something flat retarded?

lala
 Quoting: CtrlAltDelete


PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEZZZZZZE. Provide just one example of a NEW species that we have OBSERVED evolving naturally from an existing species. Just one!
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Dog, Bear etc is not a scientific name. Its a generic name. The species of "Dog" is called Canis Lupus. Domestic dogs are a subspecies of Canis Lupus. There are 38 subspecies of Canis Lupus. The domestic dogs scientific name is Canis Lupus Familiaris. Speciation is not "Dog" speciating into "Cow". Evolution is gradual. Thats why you see in the fossil record dog-like fossils becoming dog fossils. Mammal-like fossils becoming mammals. Speciation means one population has genetically changed to the point they cannot reproduce with the other populations of that species, meaning it is a new species. This is macroevolution.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


Thank you for your response. I was responding to a post saying that "we see new species developing all the time."

Again, we see variation developing, but we do not see "NEW SPECIES DEVELOPING." Do we?
mushufasa11

User ID: 76590430
Canada
08/09/2018 05:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Both sides take a leap of faith at some point. It can be argued which side has to take more of a leap, I guess.. Is that what's going on here or do people actually think they "know"?

Key to life is not being too strong in your convictions, stuck in your inevitably flawed truths.

Our perceptions are so limited; logic so boxed in. Trying to find examples of "new species developing" from a process that is supposed to occur over millenia is just futile. Especially when we cannot precisely define/understand what a "species" even is. There are always exceptions in nature.

Technically, one could say that through man's breeding and domestication of various plant and animal species we have observed a sped-up version evolution. A dog for example, is now a distinct species from a wolf which it was originally bred from. Off the top of my head, I do not have any examples occurring "in nature." Unless you turn to the fossil record, but to make absolute conclusions from this is problematic. So its up to you what you will accept as evidence or not.

The biogenesis vs abiogenesis thing is really a non-starter, a semantic mish-mash. New discoveries may cause this discussion to change but at the moment, with the perspectives involved, it is at an impasse.

Also if the “laws of physics” are universal and can never change, then the Big Bang and Intelligent Design are both equally likely(or unlikely) as both scenarios defy these laws.

Last Edited by mushufasa11 on 08/09/2018 07:21 PM
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
08/09/2018 10:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Both sides take a leap of faith at some point. It can be argued which side has to take more of a leap, I guess.. Is that what's going on here or do people actually think they "know"?

Key to life is not being too strong in your convictions, stuck in your inevitably flawed truths.

Our perceptions are so limited; logic so boxed in. Trying to find examples of "new species developing" from a process that is supposed to occur over millenia is just futile. Especially when we cannot precisely define/understand what a "species" even is. There are always exceptions in nature.

Technically, one could say that through man's breeding and domestication of various plant and animal species we have observed a sped-up version evolution. A dog for example, is now a distinct species from a wolf which it was originally bred from. Off the top of my head, I do not have any examples occurring "in nature." Unless you turn to the fossil record, but to make absolute conclusions from this is problematic. So its up to you what you will accept as evidence or not.

The biogenesis vs abiogenesis thing is really a non-starter, a semantic mish-mash. New discoveries may cause this discussion to change but at the moment, with the perspectives involved, it is at an impasse.

Also if the “laws of physics” are universal and can never change, then the Big Bang and Intelligent Design are both equally likely(or unlikely) as both scenarios defy these laws.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


Science isn't about faith. It's about creating predictive models that explain the observed facts and give us applications.

When it comes to animals and plants, a species when used by biologists means a population capable of breeding and producing viable offspring. Speciation -the process where one species branches into two- has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, it does not violate the laws of physics. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It can't be tested and it doesn't make any predictions.
mushufasa11

User ID: 76590430
Canada
08/09/2018 11:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Both sides take a leap of faith at some point. It can be argued which side has to take more of a leap, I guess.. Is that what's going on here or do people actually think they "know"?

Key to life is not being too strong in your convictions, stuck in your inevitably flawed truths.

Our perceptions are so limited; logic so boxed in. Trying to find examples of "new species developing" from a process that is supposed to occur over millenia is just futile. Especially when we cannot precisely define/understand what a "species" even is. There are always exceptions in nature.

Technically, one could say that through man's breeding and domestication of various plant and animal species we have observed a sped-up version evolution. A dog for example, is now a distinct species from a wolf which it was originally bred from. Off the top of my head, I do not have any examples occurring "in nature." Unless you turn to the fossil record, but to make absolute conclusions from this is problematic. So its up to you what you will accept as evidence or not.

The biogenesis vs abiogenesis thing is really a non-starter, a semantic mish-mash. New discoveries may cause this discussion to change but at the moment, with the perspectives involved, it is at an impasse.

Also if the “laws of physics” are universal and can never change, then the Big Bang and Intelligent Design are both equally likely(or unlikely) as both scenarios defy these laws.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


Science isn't about faith. It's about creating predictive models that explain the observed facts and give us applications.

When it comes to animals and plants, a species when used by biologists means a population capable of breeding and producing viable offspring. Speciation -the process where one species branches into two- has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, it does not violate the laws of physics. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It can't be tested and it doesn't make any predictions.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


Whether we can really trust what we are seeing in our observations and whether our brains are capable of forming absolute conclusions from a data set is where the faith in science comes in.

I am a plant biologist. I am aware that there is a scientific definition of the word "species" but as I mentioned, there are always exceptions and the definition becomes more grey than at face-value. Many different plant species are able to form viable hybrids due to chromosome doubling. Plants do a lot of weird things and the genetics can get very complex. Also where does the established definition of a species leave organisms that reproduce mainly a-sexually (like many plants and bacteria do). This type of discussion can go on and on. Humans are very reductionist in their thinking, trying to jam things into categories that are more open than we'd like to think.

The Big Bang itself does not defy the laws of physics, but what caused the Bing Bang does and that's what the Creationist posters are arguing.
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/10/2018 12:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Both sides take a leap of faith at some point. It can be argued which side has to take more of a leap, I guess.. Is that what's going on here or do people actually think they "know"?

Key to life is not being too strong in your convictions, stuck in your inevitably flawed truths.

Our perceptions are so limited; logic so boxed in. Trying to find examples of "new species developing" from a process that is supposed to occur over millenia is just futile. Especially when we cannot precisely define/understand what a "species" even is. There are always exceptions in nature.

Technically, one could say that through man's breeding and domestication of various plant and animal species we have observed a sped-up version evolution. A dog for example, is now a distinct species from a wolf which it was originally bred from. Off the top of my head, I do not have any examples occurring "in nature." Unless you turn to the fossil record, but to make absolute conclusions from this is problematic. So its up to you what you will accept as evidence or not.

The biogenesis vs abiogenesis thing is really a non-starter, a semantic mish-mash. New discoveries may cause this discussion to change but at the moment, with the perspectives involved, it is at an impasse.

Also if the “laws of physics” are universal and can never change, then the Big Bang and Intelligent Design are both equally likely(or unlikely) as both scenarios defy these laws.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


Science isn't about faith. It's about creating predictive models that explain the observed facts and give us applications.

When it comes to animals and plants, a species when used by biologists means a population capable of breeding and producing viable offspring. Speciation -the process where one species branches into two- has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, it does not violate the laws of physics. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It can't be tested and it doesn't make any predictions.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


Scientific theories are based on observational data. What is this observational data which supports the big bang?

How does the big bang NOT violate the first law of thermodynamics?
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/10/2018 12:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Both sides take a leap of faith at some point. It can be argued which side has to take more of a leap, I guess.. Is that what's going on here or do people actually think they "know"?

Key to life is not being too strong in your convictions, stuck in your inevitably flawed truths.

Our perceptions are so limited; logic so boxed in. Trying to find examples of "new species developing" from a process that is supposed to occur over millenia is just futile. Especially when we cannot precisely define/understand what a "species" even is. There are always exceptions in nature.

Technically, one could say that through man's breeding and domestication of various plant and animal species we have observed a sped-up version evolution. A dog for example, is now a distinct species from a wolf which it was originally bred from. Off the top of my head, I do not have any examples occurring "in nature." Unless you turn to the fossil record, but to make absolute conclusions from this is problematic. So its up to you what you will accept as evidence or not.

The biogenesis vs abiogenesis thing is really a non-starter, a semantic mish-mash. New discoveries may cause this discussion to change but at the moment, with the perspectives involved, it is at an impasse.

Also if the “laws of physics” are universal and can never change, then the Big Bang and Intelligent Design are both equally likely(or unlikely) as both scenarios defy these laws.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


Science isn't about faith. It's about creating predictive models that explain the observed facts and give us applications.

When it comes to animals and plants, a species when used by biologists means a population capable of breeding and producing viable offspring. Speciation -the process where one species branches into two- has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, it does not violate the laws of physics. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It can't be tested and it doesn't make any predictions.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


The Big Bang itself does not defy the laws of physics, but what caused the Bing Bang does and that's what the Creationist posters are arguing.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


The big bang violates the first law of thermodyanmics. Conservation of matter and energy.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
08/10/2018 03:11 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
The big bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. Conservation of matter and energy.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

1. The BBT doesn't state that the Universe came from nothing.
2. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply inside the Universe.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
08/10/2018 05:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Whether we can really trust what we are seeing in our observations and whether our brains are capable of forming absolute conclusions from a data set is where the faith in science comes in.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


Unlike religion, in science we don't have faith that our conclusions are absolutely true. If we did, our conclusions would never change. In science we doubt our conclusions. We test them. We actively try to disprove them and then build probable explanations based on the evidence.

A scientific theory has applications, regardless if it is absolutely true or not. Like Newtonian mechanics, they may not be correct beyond a certain scope, but they are still useful.

I am a plant biologist. I am aware that there is a scientific definition of the word "species" but as I mentioned, there are always exceptions and the definition becomes more grey than at face-value. Many different plant species are able to form viable hybrids due to chromosome doubling. Plants do a lot of weird things and the genetics can get very complex. Also where does the established definition of a species leave organisms that reproduce mainly a-sexually (like many plants and bacteria do). This type of discussion can go on and on. Humans are very reductionist in their thinking, trying to jam things into categories that are more open than we'd like to think.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


There's no point splitting hairs. The kind of speciation that is required for evolution theory has been observed.

The Big Bang itself does not defy the laws of physics, but what caused the Bing Bang does and that's what the Creationist posters are arguing.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


How do you know it does?
mushufasa11

User ID: 76590430
Canada
08/10/2018 12:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Unlike religion, in science we don't have faith that our conclusions are absolutely true. If we did, our conclusions would never change. In science we doubt our conclusions. We test them. We actively try to disprove them and then build probable explanations based on the evidence.


A scientific theory has applications, regardless if it is absolutely true or not. Like Newtonian mechanics, they may not be correct beyond a certain scope, but they are still useful.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


I have a post earlier in the thread that is in agreement with this. That is an all well and good approach to life, but you've just admitted that through science we cannot know absolute truth. That is the only point I was trying to make.

In my day-to-day life, I believe in evolution. But I think it is much more complex than what we currently know and some of the implications man makes from evolution are where the real problems lie.

There's no point splitting hairs. The kind of speciation that is required for evolution theory has been observed.
 Quoting: Spur-Man

I don't doubt this. I even tried to give examples. Most scientists point to the fossil record for the easiest way to observe speciation. I said that I didn't have any examples occurring in nature during my lifetime simply because I didn't know any, not that I don't think there are any. Perhaps I misunderstood exactly what the poster Harry The Dog was asking, or he had a different idea of what a "species" is.

Splitting hairs over the definition of "species" was to show that we cannot fully classify reality/nature. Perhaps accessing higher states of consciousness one can obtain higher truths but these cannot be expressed simply in language.


How do you know it does?
 Quoting: Spur-Man


I don't know for sure. I made an absolute statement for practicality sake of the conversation. I assumed that something coming from nothing or however it started probably violates a law of physics. If not it at least violates some laws of logic, as its been a philosophical debate for some time now. I would be interested to hear your idea of how the Big Bang started or at least what the mainstream theory is now.

Last Edited by mushufasa11 on 08/10/2018 12:59 PM
Kakarot_

User ID: 76796294
Australia
08/10/2018 01:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


Fuck are you talking about?
We see new species developing all the time and we know how various different species arose over million of years.

Creationists say the dumbest things.

Why would you say something flat retarded?

lala
 Quoting: CtrlAltDelete


PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEZZZZZZE. Provide just one example of a NEW species that we have OBSERVED evolving naturally from an existing species. Just one!
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Dog, Bear etc is not a scientific name. Its a generic name. The species of "Dog" is called Canis Lupus. Domestic dogs are a subspecies of Canis Lupus. There are 38 subspecies of Canis Lupus. The domestic dogs scientific name is Canis Lupus Familiaris. Speciation is not "Dog" speciating into "Cow". Evolution is gradual. Thats why you see in the fossil record dog-like fossils becoming dog fossils. Mammal-like fossils becoming mammals. Speciation means one population has genetically changed to the point they cannot reproduce with the other populations of that species, meaning it is a new species. This is macroevolution.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


Thank you for your response. I was responding to a post saying that "we see new species developing all the time."

Again, we see variation developing, but we do not see "NEW SPECIES DEVELOPING." Do we?
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Speciation is genetic, they can still look the same physically. They have already seen populations evolve a lot like the italian wall lizard experiment where they evolved a new organ and became stronger only within 30 years. It's already a fact that speciation happens when they tried it with fruit flies.

[link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.

“As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force,” says Irschick. “Because plants are tough and fibrous, high bite forces allow the lizards to crop smaller pieces from plants, which can help them break down the indigestible cell walls.”
 Quoting:


speciation
[link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]
[link to evolution.berkeley.edu (secure)]

Also evolution is not a debate. They don't all go out looking for speciation. It really is not that interesting to them unless they evolved a lot physically. 99.9% of relevant scientists accept evolution already.
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/11/2018 02:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
The big bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. Conservation of matter and energy.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

1. The BBT doesn't state that the Universe came from nothing.
2. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply inside the Universe.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


When I was indoctrinated in science classes in public school, I 'learned' that a tiny mass exploded into the known universe.

Where did this mass come from? Therefore I use the word 'religion', because it requires incredibly strong faith to believe in it.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
08/11/2018 03:30 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
The big bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. Conservation of matter and energy.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

1. The BBT doesn't state that the Universe came from nothing.
2. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply inside the Universe.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

When I was indoctrinated in science classes in public school, I 'learned' that a tiny mass exploded into the known universe.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

Either your teacher got it wrong, or you remember it wrong.
Not as if American anti-intellectuals like you haven't been undermining education for decades.

Where did this mass come from?
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

In science it is perfectly fine to say "We don't know yet."

Therefore I use the word 'religion', because it requires incredibly strong faith to believe in it.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

The notion that once upon a time the Universe was tiny and extremely hot and dense is the best-fit explanation for the observational data.
You failing to understand this are just arguments from ignorance and incredulity, IOW completely irrelevant.
Someone who doesn't have the tiniest clue about cosmology does not get to tell cosmologists that they are doing it wrong.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/14/2018 02:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
The big bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. Conservation of matter and energy.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

1. The BBT doesn't state that the Universe came from nothing.
2. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply inside the Universe.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

When I was indoctrinated in science classes in public school, I 'learned' that a tiny mass exploded into the known universe.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

Either your teacher got it wrong, or you remember it wrong.
Not as if American anti-intellectuals like you haven't been undermining education for decades.

Where did this mass come from?
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

In science it is perfectly fine to say "We don't know yet."

Therefore I use the word 'religion', because it requires incredibly strong faith to believe in it.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

The notion that once upon a time the Universe was tiny and extremely hot and dense is the best-fit explanation for the observational data.
You failing to understand this are just arguments from ignorance and incredulity, IOW completely irrelevant.
Someone who doesn't have the tiniest clue about cosmology does not get to tell cosmologists that they are doing it wrong.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


If you don't know, tell your evolutionist buddies to keep their religion out of our public school science books. I do not remember incorrectly, books were scanned and can be cited today. Prentice Hall is one of the obvious culprits.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
08/14/2018 07:34 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

If you don't know, tell your evolutionist buddies to keep their religion out of our public school science books.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

You have yet to prove that any schoolbook claims the universe came from nothing.

I do not remember incorrectly, books were scanned and can be cited today. Prentice Hall is one of the obvious culprits.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

Than you should have no problem providing a citation.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Kakarot_

User ID: 76796294
Australia
08/14/2018 08:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...

1. The BBT doesn't state that the Universe came from nothing.
2. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply inside the Universe.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

When I was indoctrinated in science classes in public school, I 'learned' that a tiny mass exploded into the known universe.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

Either your teacher got it wrong, or you remember it wrong.
Not as if American anti-intellectuals like you haven't been undermining education for decades.

Where did this mass come from?
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

In science it is perfectly fine to say "We don't know yet."

Therefore I use the word 'religion', because it requires incredibly strong faith to believe in it.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

The notion that once upon a time the Universe was tiny and extremely hot and dense is the best-fit explanation for the observational data.
You failing to understand this are just arguments from ignorance and incredulity, IOW completely irrelevant.
Someone who doesn't have the tiniest clue about cosmology does not get to tell cosmologists that they are doing it wrong.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


If you don't know, tell your evolutionist buddies to keep their religion out of our public school science books. I do not remember incorrectly, books were scanned and can be cited today. Prentice Hall is one of the obvious culprits.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


Evolution is change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over time. The theory explains how this happens, the processes of evolution. Mutation, Gene Flow, Natural Selection, Genetic Drift. Evolution and its processes are observed and reproducible.
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/17/2018 01:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

If you don't know, tell your evolutionist buddies to keep their religion out of our public school science books.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

You have yet to prove that any schoolbook claims the universe came from nothing.

I do not remember incorrectly, books were scanned and can be cited today. Prentice Hall is one of the obvious culprits.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

Than you should have no problem providing a citation.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


The tiny mass or singularity which evolutionists claim magically turned into the universe, supposedly came from...what?

I will post the screenshots as soon as you admit this is not science, and does not belong in the public school science books.

It is a religion and should be taught in privately funded schools, like how creation is being taught.
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/17/2018 01:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...

When I was indoctrinated in science classes in public school, I 'learned' that a tiny mass exploded into the known universe.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

Either your teacher got it wrong, or you remember it wrong.
Not as if American anti-intellectuals like you haven't been undermining education for decades.

Where did this mass come from?
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

In science it is perfectly fine to say "We don't know yet."

Therefore I use the word 'religion', because it requires incredibly strong faith to believe in it.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

The notion that once upon a time the Universe was tiny and extremely hot and dense is the best-fit explanation for the observational data.
You failing to understand this are just arguments from ignorance and incredulity, IOW completely irrelevant.
Someone who doesn't have the tiniest clue about cosmology does not get to tell cosmologists that they are doing it wrong.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


If you don't know, tell your evolutionist buddies to keep their religion out of our public school science books. I do not remember incorrectly, books were scanned and can be cited today. Prentice Hall is one of the obvious culprits.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


Evolution is change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over time. The theory explains how this happens, the processes of evolution. Mutation, Gene Flow, Natural Selection, Genetic Drift. Evolution and its processes are observed and reproducible.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


When you claim the genetic information came from non-genetic information, that is where your science becomes religion.
nineteeneightyfive

User ID: 76754110
United States
08/17/2018 01:41 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Darwin was a drunk and babled a lot
 Quoting: jake


drinks
A Coot is a Bird....
Booboo Kitty Truck

User ID: 76019336
United States
08/17/2018 02:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
A creator outside of our material spacetime dimension is actually required scientifically. We know this as we know the universe is finite...if it were infinite there would be no energy left, the universe would be completely devoid of energy and be totally dead, ie heat death. What we observe instead is a universe running down, towards an end, from the beginning.

So what was before time and space? That is where the creator exists. Humanistic materialists would actually be fine with that if you take away the moral component, that there is a God who tells us right from wrong.

It is actually kind of hilarious. Atheistic materialists can be told that...DNA is a language system and language requires an intelligence to exist...they ignore it. They look at the ability of living things to adapt to certain conditions, and rather than admitting that adaptation is light years away from "evolution", they say, well, we all started from a single cell that was produced by an accidental collection of atoms, totally ignoring that it is mathematically impossible for it to happen. They simply ignore the fact that there is no evidence in the fossils that show any kind of animal has ever turned into any other kind. They ignore the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. They ignore the fact that fossils are dated by the layer of rock they are in, and...the rock is dated by the fossils in them!

Quantum physics has proven that time is an illusion, that there are other dimensions, and that almost certainly, we are living in some sort of simulated reality...or as the Bible says, we see through a glass darkly. We don't see the true reality.

It doesn't matter what they are shown, they will hold to it as it is their religion and their security blanket against God.

I wonder sometimes, when the Bible talks about a grand delusion in the end times that even might deceive the elect, if that isn't pointing to evolution. Because the blindness of those who believe it is complete and total.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
08/17/2018 10:44 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Than you should have no problem providing a citation.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

The tiny mass or singularity which evolutionists claim magically turned into the universe, supposedly came from...what?
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

The "Cosmic Egg" was the Universe, and it wasn't a "tiny mass," it contained all the matter/energy that ever was or will be.
We do not have enough data to determine what happened before.

If you knew anything about cosmology you wouldn't need to ask such questions.
As always the opinion of ignorami is irrelevant and useless.

I will post the screenshots as soon as you admit this is not science, and does not belong in the public school science books.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

Maybe you should explain to us what you think science is, so we know that you know what you are talking about.

It is a religion and should be taught in privately funded schools, like how creation is being taught.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills

Maybe you should also explain what you think religion is, you seem to be very confused about the matter.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Booboo Kitty Truck

User ID: 76019336
United States
08/17/2018 12:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEZZZZZZE. Provide just one example of a NEW species that we have OBSERVED evolving naturally from an existing species. Just one!
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Dog, Bear etc is not a scientific name. Its a generic name. The species of "Dog" is called Canis Lupus. Domestic dogs are a subspecies of Canis Lupus. There are 38 subspecies of Canis Lupus. The domestic dogs scientific name is Canis Lupus Familiaris. Speciation is not "Dog" speciating into "Cow". Evolution is gradual. Thats why you see in the fossil record dog-like fossils becoming dog fossils. Mammal-like fossils becoming mammals. Speciation means one population has genetically changed to the point they cannot reproduce with the other populations of that species, meaning it is a new species. This is macroevolution.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


Thank you for your response. I was responding to a post saying that "we see new species developing all the time."

Again, we see variation developing, but we do not see "NEW SPECIES DEVELOPING." Do we?
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Speciation is genetic, they can still look the same physically. They have already seen populations evolve a lot like the italian wall lizard experiment where they evolved a new organ and became stronger only within 30 years. It's already a fact that speciation happens when they tried it with fruit flies.

[link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. Now, an international team of researchers has shown that introducing these small, green-backed lizards, Podarcis sicula, to a new environment caused them to undergo rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes.

“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

Researchers returned to the islands twice a year for three years, in the spring and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006. Captured lizards were transported to a field laboratory and measured for snout-vent length, head dimensions and body mass. Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

Observed changes in head morphology were caused by adaptation to a different food source. According to Irschick, lizards on the barren island of Pod Kopiste were well-suited to catching mobile prey, feasting mainly on insects. Life on Pod Mrcaru, where they had never lived before, offered them an abundant supply of plant foods, including the leaves and stems from native shrubs. Analysis of the stomach contents of lizards on Pod Mrcaru showed that their diet included up to two-thirds plants, depending on the season, a large increase over the population of Pod Kopiste.

“As a result, individuals on Pod Mrcaru have heads that are longer, wider and taller than those on Pod Kopiste, which translates into a big increase in bite force,” says Irschick. “Because plants are tough and fibrous, high bite forces allow the lizards to crop smaller pieces from plants, which can help them break down the indigestible cell walls.”
 Quoting:


speciation
[link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]
[link to evolution.berkeley.edu (secure)]

Also evolution is not a debate. They don't all go out looking for speciation. It really is not that interesting to them unless they evolved a lot physically. 99.9% of relevant scientists accept evolution already.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


Scientists accept adaptation and then extrapolate from there. Speciation, in terms of seeing any animal change into another kind of animal, has never been observed at all, and is refuted by fossil evidence.

We find lizards with all kinds of adaptations in the fossil bed. We find monkey and apes, possums and horses, cats and dogs. What we son't find is links in a chain of a cat adapting itself eventualy into say, a cow, or a pony.

We don't find any evidence, in fact, that points to anything other than the fact that cats...have always been cats. That got bigger, and smaller, and adapted to grow stronger, or to withstand more or less heat.

Evolution is a religion in that regardless of these facts, people say that somehow evolution has been observed. No, adaptation has been observed within the kind of animals we see.

A lizard is a lizard, whether that species adapts to environmental changes or not.