Denial of evolution II

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vhawk Registered Member

    any one would think that being an adherent of the theory of revolution was a religion going by the way they foam at the mouth if any one dares to doubt it, not that i do, big time, only have some slight reservations but don't anathematise me
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. phlogistician Banned Banned

    It's not abut could it's about is billions of years old.

    Yet you linked to them in support of your hypothesis.

    Science doesn't do dogma, that's religion you aer getting confused with. Either way, we have good data on the disappearance dates for dinosaurs.

    Oh, you are so arrogant. You, are 'showing' us something that only you have the intelligence to see, eh?

    Sorry, but you've failed to open any doors of perception for me. Science is science, and the bible is a work of fiction, and nothink you have said is compelling.

    But not from you.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    You are rather missing the point that whatever we may correctly call it, it was not called that, nor referenced in any direct way in the Biblical record.
    I do, however, have an explanation for why you might think so. Is there a timber merchant in your neighourhood? If so, visit them and see if they have available for purchase wooden planks. Buy two of these, neither longer than three feet. Take them home and place one on top of the other. Using some form of measuring device check their thickness.

    This is an important number for you to remember, since you are as thick as two short planks.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. STEALTH60 Registered Member

    Visitor, you need to get real. however you clearly won't be persuaded, I'LL ADD MY VOTE FOR EVOLUTION. YOU SHOULD VISIT...............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    I do not know but bet this is false. All materials have some dimagnetism (that follows for Len's law - apply a B field and the electrons will cause a partially canceling field.)

    Fero magnetism is an cooperative interaction amoung many atoms with magnetic monents. I serious doubt that just because something "contains iron" that it must be magnetic. If I had to bet, I would bet hemogloben molecule is dimagnetic like most things are.

    Does anyone know? - give ref.
  9. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Good point!
    No doubt it is like a religion, and science has become their golden calf.
    Look at the way it's followers blindly believe whatever their told....even if this week's survey is the opposite of last week's.
    No questioning it, no independent thought, just all toting the party line in here...
    How predictable.

    I have obviously touched a nerve here...since all the thoroughly indoctrinated have lined up to come after me and "prove me wrong".
    Even after I offered them a solution that answers the dogma in both religion and science.

    But oh I forgot, science has no dogma..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I'm not here to "flame" up a reaction from the mediocrity.
    Let them believe what they will.
    Maybe a few will lift their head from the trail of least resistance and realize there is no safety in numbers playing follow the leader.
    Most are beyond help, and my last post explains why.
    It was entirely to be expected.

    Billy T...with a name like DarkVisitor, you can't be all bad so I'll let you in on a little something.
    Don't bother trying to disprove these test results.
    They aren't the only ones.
    This was just the first hit I got when googled it.

    There are volumes of recent dinosaur finds from dragons of the middle ages to fresh "bronto" tracks in soft mud of the Congo in 1959.
    The good ol' boy's club of archeology has buried, destroyed and lost every find as fast as they surfaced.
    Things shipped to the Smithsonian and the British museum of natural history never to be seen from again.
    That is their primary purpose, not discovery and uncovering of truth to the general population.
    Damage control.
    If you know anything about history you know that's true.
    That warehouse in the "Indy" movies isn't some figment of artistic licence.
    Here is a Smithsonian article admitting the find of non-petrified soft tissue with red blood cells...but scrambling to spin some cover story explaining how it was preserved 65 million years.

    The article clouds the issue with controversy, by claiming the find was hijacked by the "young earth" fanatics and thereby dismissing the real importance of the find. Case closed.
    That is how these guys operate.
    Both sides in religion and science, are actively involved in covering the truth.

    I'm not even going to argue this any further.
    I went over this with Graham Hancock years ago...
    It's too controversial and he had more important issues like books to sell.
    I don't want to go there and you don't want to either.
    Just walk away.
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  10. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator


    I see no reason to close the "50 reasons why I reject evolution" thread, yet. Instead, I merged it into the new ‘Denial of Evolution II’ thread. This seems like an appropriate place for the content. I hope this is an acceptable resolution to your “demands”.
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    You misinterpret our reaction to these doubts. We are merely practicing the scientific method, specifically the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary substantiation before we are obliged to treat them with respect. Evolution has achieved the status of a canonical scientific theory because it is supported by a mountain of evidence from two sciences (the fossils of paleontology and the DNA of biology), it has been tested and peer-reviewed exhaustively and never come close to falsification, and in fact no respectable challenges have been mounted against it in at least three-quarters of a century. Evolution is "true beyond a reasonable doubt," the highest status any scientific theory can attain. Therefore, to gainsay evolution is a textbook case of advancing an extraordinary assertion. The only (occasionally) coherent denials of evolution come from a certain extremist branch of the religionists, and their alleged substantiation always boils down to religious arguments (when it's not simply fraudulent). Since religion (at least fundamentalist Christianity, which is where all the noise is coming from these days) is based on irrational faith, it is at best unscientific and at worst antiscientific.

    So perhaps you can understand that when we are barraged incessantly with completely unscientific and often antiscientific challenges to a canonical theory--especially here on a website moderated by volunteers with a limited bandwidth--we do indeed get more than a little pissed off. We'd much rather be advancing science by explaining the theory of relativity to precocious high school students, or being good elders in the community by keeping discussions of politics and current events within the bounds of scholarship, rather than having to constantly explain the basic principles of biology and other sciences to religionists.
    I doubt that there's a single member of Sciforums who participates in the evolution denial discussion who does not thoroughly understand the science behind the theory of evolution, except perhaps some kids who just tuned in. No one here accepts evolution as dogma or a matter of faith.

    I personally was a member of a branch of CSICOP that hosted a debate between a real scientist and a spokesmen chosen by the people in the creation "science" movement. He was a quick-witted, articulate, charismatic, well-educated speaker. But his "evidence" was all carefully selected bits which, out of context, appeared to support his point, plus poorly reviewed papers from third-rate universities.

    This is the kind of crap we have to keep fending off: patently dishonorable fraud. So we ask no forgiveness for getting angry about it. We're all hoping that the sea change in American politics might see the end of the Religious Redneck Retard Revival.
    Thank you. I believe in keeping the cockroaches on top of the linoleum where we can keep track of them. But it's nice to restrict them to just one or two squares.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. cully5 Registered Member

    I read in a book that 2 + 2 = 4 ... when someone argues 2 + 2 =5, it does not weaken (or necessarily strengthen) your argument to use existing ideas or evidence. So that retort was simply rubbish.

    At the same time, Visitor, you make some great points on the fact that yes the bible is somewhat vague and ambiguous and it is plausible to 'open' interpretations of it that have not been disproved by solid evidence. Attacking the bible is not a good argument supporting evolution.

    And, yes, it is obvious that many who argue for evolution on this thread are very emotionally invested in the theory which is the same zone where logic and reason begins to break down.

    My position is that I can see a great deal more rational and logical evidence to support the theory of evolution than any other explanation for the the numerous species we find on earth.

    With that in mind, sure, it is possible this theory will be proven false but for the time being sciences such as medicine and biology should make use of this theory to continue developments until the evidence supporting it is proven wrong.

    An example how rational, unemotional science works can be seen in Newton's law of universal gravitation which had good supporting evidence but has since been superseded by a theory which explains observable data more effectively... general relativity.

    Visitor do you really propose that the bible accounts for observable data more effectively than the theory of evolution?
  13. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Conjecture and opinion. Overruled.

    I'll bet you would.
    Indoctrination isn't limited to religion is it now?

    When an explanation is submitted to answer an issue of debate, but the authority remains committed to the same position...
    That is the definition of "Dogma".

    I offered an original solution that claimed dogma on both sides is clouding the issue.
    The reaction was like poking a stick in a hornet's nest.

    What a shining example of unbiased moderation.
    I would say you have proven my point, but I'm not trying to do that here.
    Let's just let people make their own decisions and keep all the "unbiased" opinions to a minimum shall we?
    I think that would have more of an impact anyway wouldn't it?
    And...thanks for voting to keep all of us "cockroaches" alive to have our say. That's "Darn decent of you".

    No. The bible isn't attempting to account for all observable data. Science will eventually do that.
    It is accounting for the unobservable data.

    Hebrews 11:3
    Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    I stated the bible is not attempting to provide a detailed account for the beginning of man.
    It begins with a world covered with water from a previous judgment.
    It doesn't attempt to explain details about the time before that.
    Man the animal was created through a process of natural physical laws set in order by God.
    That is what science sees as evolution. There should be no conflict there.
    Religious fundamentalists have misinterpreted the scriptures.
    They have been the ones hiding the truth throughout history.
    The bible is more about the creation of God, not the creation of man.
    Adam was not just a man. He was a new creation, a son of god.
    There were two different races of man spoken of that mixed.

    I didn't deny the process called evolution exists.
    That's just physical laws set in motion.
    I said an action of "creation" was also involved that this process does not entirely account for.

    This 30 second clip explains the reasons for cover-up and dogma on both sides about as well as I can.
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    In your imaginary world you have the authority to do that don't you?

    There is a qualittive difference between teaching a methdology that is inherently self correcting, and one which relies upon ancient texts.

    You continue to display your ignorance beneath a cloak of grammatically correct verbiage that is quite bereft of logic. The submitted explanation has failed to answer the issue of debate. It is an irrelevant submission. Rejecting nonsense and remaining with the current position is not dogma, it is is good sense and good science.[/QUOTE]
  15. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Some are missing my point, but I see a few are getting it.
    That's about all anyone can ask for.
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2009
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No. In common with every single assertion or suggestion you have made on this forum that I can check, that one is false.

    Which is a bit odd as attributed, because it expresses one of the few meanings in your postings that aren't dizzy, and might have been expressed by a sensible and thoughtful person. My favorite of the more typical ones so far is the mention of the nuclear event recorded in Hindu accounts that knocked the earth's axis akilter, temporarily.
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    I guess that early humans were feral children.
  18. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member


    In spite of what science would have us believe, early humans were mentally and physically superior to us in every way.

    We are a watered down hybrid of two parent species.
    What has been done to us is similar to making a house cat out of a mountain lion.

    We have one tenth the physical ability and size of one of our parent species.
    A twelve foot tall man that was solid muscle weighed in at about one ton.

    We have one tenth the mental and spiritual abilities of the other parent species.
    One tenth the mental capacity learning to use only about one tenth of our brain.
    No wonder because we live less than one tenth of their lifespan.

    Take a 200 pound mountain lion, breed it down to twenty pounds, declaw it and put it in somebody's house as a pet.
    That is modern man compared to our ancestors.

    Of course modern science would have you believe otherwise, bragging about all of our new discoveries and unequaled achievements.
    Man couldn't build the Great Pyramid with all our modern technology yet today.

    That should have been your first clue.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2009
  19. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    Well, that's something questionable. Not all mothers leave their kids before they reach a certain age.
  20. cully5 Registered Member

    what makes you believe this? Is this stated in the bible? any evidence?

    I think man could easily build a pyramid today, look at the burj dubai... and there is no evidence that life on earth prior to present day man had technology that could store vast amounts of data, take us to the moon and move us from continent to continent at super sonic speeds.
  21. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Only in particular cases

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator


    Complete and utter rubbish from the first word to the last. I want to see you substantiate any of those claims with some references or verifiable science. Otherwise you will stop posting this nonsense. Comprende?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    The Visitor is mental. I took a while to cotton on, but he is certifiable. I have been wasting my time 'debating' with a certifiable nutcase. When will I learn? When will I learn?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page