Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by linliangtai

Fools see new stars forming. They are not proven, period.

Not if you completely ignore the facts like you are
LINK

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Marko Rodin's work is as cutting edge as it gets. There are many websites that contain his theories.

I'm just going to stop you there. Haven't I been asking for academic papers on his work? I'm not asking for websites...websites contain all sorts of hogwash. I want some proper, peer-reviewed work. I'd like to see how other academics are responding to his work, not just a bunch of internet people applauding stuff because they like how it makes them feel.

If it were really as cutting edge as it gets (and the term would be 'bleeding edge') then there would actually be some academic publication going on and the mathematicians of the world would be calling him the new Newton.

Edit:

Furthermore, the website you linked is from some cranks who think that 'free energy' is possible...apparently they've not heard of thermodynamics.

I presented my viewpoint only. Take it as a comparison to your own. I am contributing my view to the topic at hand from the OP. You are correct on the fact that no academic reviews will be done of anything that might point a finger toward a designer. This would mean a loss of funding and job for anyone assisting such a venture. Science is biased against God and this, again, is my view. You surly have your own and I am fine with it. Point counter point. I always try and speak to the subject and not step on the object. This freedom is what gives us the ability to prove we are free.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Marko Rodin's work is as cutting edge as it gets. There are many websites that contain his theories.

I'm just going to stop you there. Haven't I been asking for academic papers on his work? I'm not asking for websites...websites contain all sorts of hogwash. I want some proper, peer-reviewed work. I'd like to see how other academics are responding to his work, not just a bunch of internet people applauding stuff because they like how it makes them feel.

If it were really as cutting edge as it gets (and the term would be 'bleeding edge') then there would actually be some academic publication going on and the mathematicians of the world would be calling him the new Newton.

Edit:

Furthermore, the website you linked is from some cranks who think that 'free energy' is possible...apparently they've not heard of thermodynamics.

edit on 26/4/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd
There is no conspiracy against god(s) in scientific institutions. Science concerns the falsifiable, the same reasons there are no academic papers assessing the likelihood of a pink unicorn on one of the moons of Saturn are the same reasons no research whatsoever can be done on this vague, inconsistent, superfluous thing people call god.

Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of reality versus fantasy. You are living in a fantasy. Which is fine, whatever gets you through the day, but debates quickly turn sterile because of the devastating ambiguities.

reply to post by uva3021


It's really kind of the archetypical extended debate, this thread. Highly exemplary of CONFIRMATION BIAS.

Basically, it says you WILL find what you're looking for, whether it's true or not. If you want to validate science, you find lots of things that support science. If you want to validate faith, you find plenty of support for that too.

The motivation to post is often born of the anger/insecurity invoked by a challenge to a pre-existing belief structure. So most people who post believe very strongly and are thus unlikely to go beyond their belief habit and actually think about the conflicting idea.

If a blind man touches the trunk of the elephant, he might insist that it is long and flexible, like a snake... If another touches the leg, he might argue "NO, an elephant is stout and wide like a tree trunk!" We're all running round blind trying to discover "truth". Real truth opens its pages further when you learn to listen in between your preaching. It goes hand in hand with respect.

Good luck, preachers and truth-seekers - you'll both need it!

reply to post by edsinger


None of this proves evolution is wrong all of it proves we dont know how evolution works yet, And for alien lovers the posibility we are sped up in Evolution by Bio-Enginering from a race that came to us around the Neandrathal *I dont know exactly how to spell it* and early human time and added a Evolution jump in some way from 1. Adding there genes to ours through things we know how to do today *splicing / DNA COPYING(also known as cloning) (as you stated)* or 2. By creating us in there immage. In the show Stargate Thor is only a projection as a god so he dosnt overwhelm the primative humans who had no technology even close to his races. Who knows mabe "God" is an alien name and he chose this planet to create a "Science project" if you will. Not to Blow down any one who believes in God but ive looked at ancient aliens and other things that are debated and ive came to a conclusion (i also saw someone say this one day) "If there is no picture of the camera being made can the camera even exist?"

reply to post by GarDog

If you want to validate faith, you find plenty of support for that too.

Just no objective evidence...only subjective evidence, the very thing that gets innocent people thrown in jail

reply to post by MrXYZ

Gullible. Your link to NASA site claiming new stars forming is speculation, not real proof.

reply to post by linliangtai


...I could link you to some scientific papers...but I only have them as resources through my university...you'd have to pay (not much) to get access to the journals that I'm getting them from. Want me to do the legwork for you?

Or have you never bothered to actually look at scientific journals?

Excellent thread. SnF
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident
should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape
taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
C.S. Lewis

Darwin himself struggled with his own theory until his daughters death caused his anger against God. Anger for
for a deity he did not believe in ? Makes perfect sense. Without the death of his daughter I doubt he would 've ever published. That isn't to say there weren't others waiting to steal the glory. Just that the Darwin award would go by a different name.

reply to post by randyvs


You keep on repeating the word "accident", as if that's what astronomers and cosmologists claim. They say the universe is a product of natural laws, not that it was an accident. We might not fully understand everything, but there's ZERO credible evidence hinting at divine intervention...and you claiming "god did it" is nothing but a prime example of god of the gaps.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

You keep on repeating the word "accident", as if that's what astronomers and cosmologists claim. They say the universe is a product of natural laws, not that it was an accident. We might not fully understand everything, but there's ZERO credible evidence hinting at divine intervention...and you claiming "god did it" is nothing but a prime example of god of the gaps.

Without God there can be no law. How is it you place limitations on God ? A God of the gaps is a God of necessity is a God of creation is a God of existence etc.

Originally posted by randyvs
Darwin himself struggled with his own theory until his daughters death caused his anger against God. Anger for
for a deity he did not believe in ? Makes perfect sense. Without the death of his daughter I doubt he would 've ever published. That isn't to say there weren't others waiting to steal the glory. Just that the Darwin award would go by a different name.

This is quite a mischaracterization of how events played out.

Charles Darwin doubts about the existence of God started much much earlier than the death of Annie in 1851. In correspondence between Emma and Charles in 1838, she expressed concerns that his doubt would cause them to be separated in the afterlife. If his publication of On the Origin of Species was due to anger at God fueled by the death of his daughter in 1851, why did he completely blow off Charles Lyell's suggestion in 1856 that he should start writing the book or else Alfred Russel Wallace would beat him to the punch? He still hadn't finished the book in 1858 and probably wouldn't have any time soon if he hadn't seen a paper by Wallace that described natural selection. That's the only thing that seems to have lit a fire under his ass - getting on-upped after doing decades of research. So trying to claim that Darwin publishing his theory is a hissy fit against God just doesn't fit the facts. It's either based on a misconception about the order of events or a complete fabrication.

Originally posted by randyvs
Without God there can be no law.

Says you.

How is it you place limitations on God ?

Who places limitations on something that doesn't exist?

A God of the gaps is a God of necessity is a God of creation is a God of existence etc.

Only for those who need a magical sky daddy to understand the universe.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by randyvs
Darwin himself struggled with his own theory until his daughters death caused his anger against God. Anger for
for a deity he did not believe in ? Makes perfect sense. Without the death of his daughter I doubt he would 've ever published. That isn't to say there weren't others waiting to steal the glory. Just that the Darwin award would go by a different name.

This is quite a mischaracterization of how events played out.

Charles Darwin doubts about the existence of God started much much earlier than the death of Annie in 1851. In correspondence between Emma and Charles in 1838, she expressed concerns that his doubt would cause them to be separated in the afterlife. If his publication of On the Origin of Species was due to anger at God fueled by the death of his daughter in 1851, why did he completely blow off Charles Lyell's suggestion in 1856 that he should start writing the book or else Alfred Russel Wallace would beat him to the punch? He still hadn't finished the book in 1858 and probably wouldn't have any time soon if he hadn't seen a paper by Wallace that described natural selection. That's the only thing that seems to have lit a fire under his ass - getting on-upped after doing decades of research. So trying to claim that Darwin publishing his theory is a hissy fit against God just doesn't fit the facts. It's either based on a misconception about the order of events or a complete fabrication.

I never said he didn't have doubts. However take away the death of his precious daughter ( I mean that sincerely )
I doubt very seriously he would have finished The Origin of Species. There is more than good reason to believe this if I choose to. Wouldn't you say?

Only for those who need a magical sky daddy to understand the universe

Well I'm so glad I have spoken to someone who understands the Universe well enough to claim there is no God.
That makes you God denying your own existance. Why would you do that?

Originally posted by randyvs
I never said he didn't have doubts. However take away the death of his precious daughter ( I mean that sincerely )
I doubt very seriously he would have finished The Origin of Species. There is more than good reason to believe this if I choose to. Wouldn't you say?

So he was so distraught over the death of his daughter and wanted to give God a good blast that he waited six years to even start writing the book, and didn't start writing it until his friend Lyell more or less harassed him into it, and even then was plodding along at a snails pace, and then didn't really get his ass in gear to finish it until he knew that someone else was going to beat him to the punch if he didn't? Doesn't quite add up.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by randyvs
I never said he didn't have doubts. However take away the death of his precious daughter ( I mean that sincerely )
I doubt very seriously he would have finished The Origin of Species. There is more than good reason to believe this if I choose to. Wouldn't you say?

So he was so distraught over the death of his daughter and wanted to give God a good blast that he waited six years to even start writing the book, and didn't start writing it until his friend Lyell more or less harassed him into it, and even then was plodding along at a snails pace, and then didn't really get his ass in gear to finish it until he knew that someone else was going to beat him to the punch if he didn't? Doesn't quite add up.

What you have said is the general consensus, it is also said he was still reading from the bible on the beagle. I think in the long run darwin was trying to find some answers the bible didnt provide for him.
Another common myth is that he cursed god or religion on his death bed. Some info on darwin myths for any that would like to take the time to read.
conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

reply to post by iterationzero


I can absolutly understand how someone could look around earth and claim there is no God. I can not begin to fathom how someone can look into the heavens and make the same claim.

Abraham Lincoln-

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs

 

You keep on repeating the word "accident", as if that's what astronomers and cosmologists claim. They say the universe is a product of natural laws, not that it was an accident. We might not fully understand everything, but there's ZERO credible evidence hinting at divine intervention...and you claiming "god did it" is nothing but a prime example of god of the gaps.

Without God there can be no law. How is it you place limitations on God ? A God of the gaps is a God of necessity is a God of creation is a God of existence etc.

Well, in the absence of objective evidence for the god hypothesis it's only logical to assume natural laws are responsible for things...especially if we already know they're responsible for so many things.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by iterationzero

 

I can absolutly understand how someone could look around earth and claim there is no God. I can not begin to fathom how someone can look into the heavens and make the same claim.

Abraham Lincoln-

He died in 1865 and only had a fraction of the knowledge we had today...and his quote is a typical example for god of the gaps