It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 68
65
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by Jezus
It is interesting how this debate continues in the political and religious world of rhetoric and semantics...

In the scientific world this debate does not exist.

Evolution VS Creationism

Chemistry VS Alchemy

Physics VS Magic

Zoology VS Pokemon

Observed VS Made up


Really? Thats why Science was found GUILTY by the United States Senate of the very problems is what I call Evolution VS Creationism people like Neil Degrasse Tyson saying he will use his format to Advance his atheism is what I call Evolution VS Creationism


What does any of that have to do with the fact that creationism was thought up in a person's mind and evolution is observed in our environment?

Religion is believed.
Science is observed.

Creationism is a word describing an idea.
Evolution is a word describing a series of events.




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Um it's all ideas made up in the mind of people hate to tell you. Every single concept regardless of it's validity is nothing more than an idea in our minds.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


What does any of that have to do with the fact that creationism was thought up in a person's mind and evolution is observed in our environment?


Prove it




Religion is believed.


ok




Science is observed.


is it?

And evolution is sold





Evolution is a word describing a series of events.


that have NEVER been observed and Never been Proven

and they never will.

Evolution is

DEAD



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Evolution is dead if you've stopped evolving. That makes you an evolutionary dead end. A self-described evolutionary dead end in this case.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
that have NEVER been observed and Never been Proven

and they never will.


I appreciate the honesty...

No matter how much observable evidence piles up, you will NEVER believe evolution.

This is exactly why it is pointless to debate with someone who doesn't respect science.

Your beliefs are static from an ancient novel, while science EVOLVES and is perfected.

We can only show you all the evidence, you have to open your mind.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Ok Aermacchi, I went to page 66 and went to the website of some of the articles you posted. This is my take on the sites -

Okay, the first site starts off badly. We did not descend from "apes", but from a common primate. Self-consciousness is not relegated solely to humanity. Other primates and possibly other animals are able to distinguish their personal reflections from images of other animals - which is thought to indicate self-awareness, "that image I see in front of me is a self-image of me". So, in the first paragraph, it has things wrong.

By the 4th paragraph we see the tired argument of how some fossils have been miscategorized or even proven to be hoaxes. The problem with that crappy argument is that it ignores how we know them to be mis-categorized or hoaxes. We know because the scientific method appears to work! It also looks at only a handful of mistakes, ignoring the vastly higher number of fossils that science does agree on. Didn't the fact that they had to pull out a hoax case of almost a 100 years ago strike you as strange? If evolution was as false as they claim, wouldn't there be a ton more recent cases?!?

When the site went off talking about how different branches of evolution might have been on the wrong limbs, I was pleased that they mentioned the current use of genetics to cross-check our biological family tree. Genetics has been a new method of cross-checking our ideas on evolution. It is changing how some animals were classified in the past. Of course, the website tries to spin it that our previous methods were incorrect. The point behind the scientific method is that it hopefully is self-correcting.

Also, if evolution was wrong, then genetics wouldn't work as a method to cross check dates. It should show evolution to be faulty. It doesn't. It actually supports evolutionary science.

The site then goes off criticizing scientists for being wrong in the past or having outlandish theories. So what? Science is a process. Parts of it are most assuredly wrong... which is why scientists continually test results and experiments. If something turns out to be wrong, scientists strive to take what we've learned and incorporate it into a new theory. If a scientific finding goes against an established theory, does it mean the theory is wrong? Maybe. We need to find out why the new finding goes against the theory.

The second website rails on about 99.9% identical genome between neanderthals and humans. At least they pointed out the genetic similarity between us and chimps. If evolution were false, then wouldn't we share little genetic similarity with things like chimps and neanderthals? Shouldn't nearly identical genomes be meaningless? Instead, they themselves support the idea that nearly identical genomes means that two separate species resemble one another.

The DNA telepathy thing is interesting... but it's a poor argument by creationists favoring the bible. It may be a way to say that an intelligent designer is at work, but
1. the DNA still supports evolutionary theory and discredits young earth bible creation
2. it implies that god is directly involved in DNA on a constant basis. We can test and theorize how this works... effectively finding out/proving things about god.
3. If god is perfect, then what happens if DNA screws up? It implies that god is imperfect.

To be honest, I'm not going to look at the other sites unless you really, really, really think there is something to one of them. So far, they look to be just ignorant attempts at spin.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by andre18]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Things are divided into either an art or a science, but I think that evolutionary science is more of an art. We continue to work it and perfect it, until some time we'll either scrap the idea entirely or we'll perfect it.

Religion is, in my mind, a tool of guiding a human being to greatness. Without those morals set in place by the Messiah, Mohammed, Buddha, etc... we'd be a chaotic force.

And while those morals and ideas are still valid as a guiding force in life, they're all just ideas. Can you explain the first chapter of Genesis as totally right, and discredit the older religions simply because the bible and Torah say that it is so?

People who knew nothing of science came up with ideas of how the world came to be because they had to tell their children something when they asked how it all came to be. That's what I feel. If we can't pin it down when I have children, I'll tell mine, "I dunno, that just means that you'll have to become a great scientist to figure it out."

Creationists believe what they believe because that's what they were taught to believe.
Evolutionists believe what they believe because that's what makes sense to them.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Choose the way you wish, the verified fossil record, or the Great Sky Fairy.

Bare assertion fallacy, "verified" insinuates the fossil record is true
Appeal to ridicule, no one here is claiming there is a great sky fairy.


You're call, just tell the rest of us what to believe once you've decided
Your entire post is a propositional fallacy, affirming a disjunction.


[edit on 4/15/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Lets shift this topic to the where evolution starts, the orgin of life.
What did it start with, a bacteria?


Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.



Just for an enzyme to form under the right conditions would have a .00000000000000000001% chance of happening. Correct me if I'm wrong but this gives evidence that there is a
99.999999999999999999999% chance that evolution NEVER STARTED. This also means you are 100% (rounded to the nearest trillionth) WRONG! Evolution is completely faith based which in turn is a religion. Make me an enzyme, you are more of an intelligent designer than random elements, right... I mean I could be wrong. Great claims require extraordinary evidence, and you don't seem to have any. And it seems that the odds are in my favor. Feelin lucky punk?
What say you Andre?????



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Aermacchi
that have NEVER been observed and Never been Proven

and they never will.


I appreciate the honesty...

No matter how much observable evidence piles up, you will NEVER believe evolution.

This is exactly why it is pointless to debate with someone who doesn't respect science.

Your beliefs are static from an ancient novel, while science EVOLVES and is perfected.

We can only show you all the evidence, you have to open your mind.


Give me an example of this alleged proof transmutations have been observed. Just one.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Ok Aermacchi, I went to page 66 and went to the website of some of the articles you posted. This is my take on the sites -
Okay, the first site starts off badly. We did not descend from "apes", but from a common primate. Self-consciousness is not relegated solely to humanity. Other primates and possibly other animals are able to distinguish their personal reflections from images of other animals - which is thought to indicate self-awareness, "that image I see in front of me is a self-image of me". So, in the first paragraph, it has things wrong.


You are going to have to tell me what you are talking about andre because I have no idea what this is about.
a link with the quotes would help.




By the 4th paragraph we see the tired argument of how some fossils have been miscategorized or even proven to be hoaxes. The problem with that crappy argument is that it ignores how we know them to be mis-categorized or hoaxes. We know because the scientific method appears to work!


The scientific method is only as effective as the scientists are honest and in most cases, none of them bother to use the scientific method for if they did, the theory of evolution could not pass it for the same reasons creation cannot. The logical fallacy for assuming the consequent just like my esteemed friend Jphish points out in the above post for gawds assuming the fossil record is true because he assume evolution is true but has never been observed beyond those adaptations and variation already inherant in the DNA.




It also looks at only a handful of mistakes, ignoring the vastly higher number of fossils that science does agree on. Didn't the fact that they had to pull out a hoax case of almost a 100 years ago strike you as strange? If evolution was as false as they claim, wouldn't there be a ton more recent cases?!?


Why would it? I see atheists using the crusades to attack religions all the time. Same old centuries old argument given as if it was yesterday.




Also, if evolution was wrong, then genetics wouldn't work as a method to cross check dates. It should show evolution to be faulty. It doesn't. It actually supports evolutionary science.


No it doesn't, in fact it shows evolution is impossible. No way it can happen and they know it. now. You can lead an evolutionist to logic, but you can't make him think.



The site then goes off criticizing scientists for being wrong in the past or having outlandish theories. So what? Science is a process. Parts of it are most assuredly wrong... which is why scientists continually test results and experiments. If something turns out to be wrong, scientists strive to take what we've learned and incorporate it into a new theory. If a scientific finding goes against an established theory, does it mean the theory is wrong? Maybe. We need to find out why the new finding goes against the theory.


Yes yes and can you imagine ID scientists using these "excuses" to dis-miss all the same issues they argued during the Dover trial .. No way andre, I hold evolutionists to the same damn standards they have ID and that is why they will never pass the scientific method.



If evolution were false, then wouldn't we share little genetic similarity with things like chimps and neanderthals? Shouldn't nearly identical genomes be meaningless? Instead, they themselves support the idea that nearly identical genomes means that two separate species resemble one another.


No and this is exactly what I am talking about Andre, the refusal of facing the truth the DNA evidence shows us. For instance, the way you left out the part of how much of the chimp gemome we have actually even mapped out. Do you have any idea how little we have even been into regarding them. Then we have the neanderthal, with it being 99.9% like us and you forget the part that tells us that your DNA is 99.9% close to mine which does NOT mean they themselves support the idea that nearly identical genomes means that two separate species resemble one another.

On the contrary, what it means is evolution needs to get off this asinine idea they are seprate species because they are NOT. What it means is, their wrong and their IS NO neanderthal man that the DNA tells us they are no different then we are because they are the same species!

Rather then see what is right before their eyes, you rather think this doesn't make sense because evolution is true but it ISN'T ! they are not


At least they pointed out the genetic similarity between us and chimps.


Again, andre you sound as if you WANT to be related to monkeys? The fact is we have many very strange things going on in our DNA where they will be trying to figure out HOW were are related for as long as eternity. When it comes to chromosmes we look more related to a potato



the DNA still supports evolutionary theory and discredits young earth bible creation


It destroys evolution and proves a digital code language that could not have come about without an intelligent hand guiding it andre. We know this is a fact it is not analog but digital and THAT my freind can only come about via intelligence VASTS amounts of it and not vasts amount of time afterall. It proves DNA has had templated blue prints for cerating intact living creatures with some variation and adpatation attributes for survial but no longer is mutation true as a mechanism and no longer does DNA need billions of years. The vast amount of organisms we see on earth is nothing for DNA to produce and was digitally programmed to do just that. No way was DNA a cosmic accident and it's time evolutionists recognise that undeniable irrefutable FACT of science.



it implies that god is directly involved in DNA on a constant basis. We can test and theorize how this works... effectively finding out/proving things about god.



I don't follow?



If god is perfect, then what happens if DNA screws up? It implies that god is imperfect.


Yeah so what? who are you to say what is a mistake when you have begged we overlook sciences faupax but because our concept of God means he is perfect what ever that is I have no idea
.

To be honest, I'm not going to look at the other sites unless you really, really, really think there is something to one of them. So far, they look to be just ignorant attempts at spin


Yeah go back to the sites that tell you you're right and those that have used frauds but are still ok because the scietific method will catch them someday while in the meantime we spoon feed students this crap and they continue to deny ignorance..


Their own

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by KRISKALI777


Do you use electricity? Do you personally know Thomas Alva Edison? Do you ever fly? Do you personally know the Wright Brothers? I'm thinking "No" and "No" to both. (If your really are old enough to have known all three personally, my apologies and a major jaw-drop moment ensues.)

What you just said was "If I don't want to believe it, I won't." Try rejecting the theories of aerodynamics in flight sometime.


Actually, I was speaking of the types of "scientists", that I work with everyday; which I would suppose, you, not me, maybe working actively in the field of aviation, maybe its an interest of yours; you have probably messed up a few paper planes

Did you personally know Edison? I think not. Did you perchance rub shoulders with the Wright brothers? I think not!
You see, rather than waffle on by compulsion, I choose to think about what I write.
Please read the comment again before crying wolf.
I was speaking about academics that I work with personally!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


The process I used is called "comparison". It's an interesting system. Perhaps overly complex. Noted for future reference.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


I think you may have stuffed too many tissues into your bra today.......its obviously chapping you and making you unhappy!!!!
Read my original comment and compare [/u]that with your over-reactive dribble.
COMPARE your fantasy world, with that which was actually written- hows the model aircraft going???



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


If you've ever seen the movie "Now and Then" you'd know "tissues" is not the correct answer. (I recommend it.)



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"The scientific method is only as effective as the scientists are honest and in most cases, none of them bother to use the scientific method for if they did, the theory of evolution could not pass it for the same reasons creation cannot."

So the scientists involved are all liars? And they don't follow scientific protocols? So the peer-review system for papers is a lie as well? Really?

It's odd that you can live in home with air conditioning (Thermodynamics), lighted by electricity (Electromagnetics), and use a computer to post that you don't believe in the scientific method.

(My apologies if you live in a cave and used psychic powers to post to this computer forum.)



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla


It's odd that you can live in home with air conditioning (Thermodynamics), lighted by electricity (Electromagnetics), and use a computer to post that you don't believe in the scientific method.

(My apologies if you live in a cave and used psychic powers to post to this computer forum.)




So the scientists involved are all liars? And they don't follow scientific protocols? So the peer-review system for papers is a lie as well? Really?


Science today is too wrapped up in trying to prove things work the way they are indoctrinated to think they are supposed to work and only supposed to work.

They are too bent on disqualifying good research inlieu of the politics of dogmatism ala Darwinian Dumbfoundedness when they just assume concensus science is good science.

It is idiotic what Darwinists have tried to do to the Medical field and now they want it taught in med schools and most REAL Physicians are getting sick and tired of it. They didn't mind so much when atheists were using it to advance interest in science but they are using it to advance atheism and atheists all think they are the science community when Doctors say they wouldn't know a test tube from a fallopian tube but their rhetoric is causing problems in Medicine and they want them to BUTT OUT. So in response to this sentiment, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and several others in the ether for athesim, have went on a mission to find as many Physicians as they can in an attempt to illustrate yet another bogus based concensus.

While you have offered your typical junior high school brand of smack talk in yet another response which only serves to voice your religious adherance to the Darwin Delusion, suffice it to say, you are only giving yourself away as to how out of touch with current day science practices caused by the Darwinist's paranoia that someone might try to debunk them. The fear is real and that is why they don't even bother teaching good evolution anymore much less science in general.

Darwins theory is heading into rigormortis it stinks so from having died but kept on artificial respiration for so long that when that plug gets pulled, we'll see it rot not unlike the picture of Dorian Gray, only in this case it will be Darwinian Gray, old with the stench of rotting flesh and maggot waste. They have made the scientific method a tool of rhetoric to silence ID'ist's but they simply don't use it and the reason is, as i have said so many times is because their theory can't stand up to it thus the peer review process has become a pathetic joke not even worth mentioning.

You can make cracks all you want smart guy but all of you evolutionists have been trumped in this thread. You can assume I live in a cave but it is you Scientist's would ask ,,

Where have you been?


What do scientific studies OF scientific studies tell us about the reliability of peer review?
This excellent scientific study is very interesting to read:

Some highlights include:

"There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false."
"Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."

In a similar vein here is an interesting quote I extracted from a poster on statistics website focusing on global warming issues:

"People outside science have a hopelessly exaggerated idea of the quality of peer review. I am a regular reviewer for physics journals, and I probably spend about three or four hours reviewing a typical manuscript. I check that it is comprehensible, that the authors haven't made any really glaring errors, and that they give enough references to place the work in its proper context. If I have time, and the paper is very close to my own field, I check a couple of calculations. If the manuscript is for a really top journal I spend a little longer; if it's from a group I know and trust I'm not so careful. And that's it. Comparing my reviews with other reviews of the same manuscripts I get the impression that I am at the careful end of reviewing in my field.

I used to reckon as a handy rule of thumb that 10% of published papers in my field were fraudulent, 30% were erroneous, 30% were technically correct but completely irrelevant, and the remaining 30% were worth bothering with."
February 11, 2009, 2:49 pm



Why Does Peer Review Suppress New Ideas Today?

Philip Anderson, a winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics opines that "in the early part of
the postwar [post-WWII] period [a scientist's] career was science-driven, motivated mostly by
absorption with the great enterprise of discovery, and by genuine curiosity as to how nature
operates. By the last decade of the century far too many, especially of the young people, were
seeing science as a competitive interpersonal game, in which the winner was not the one who
was objectively right as [to] the nature of scientific reality, but the one who was successful at
getting grants, publishing in Physical Review Letters, and being noticed in the news pages of
Nature, Science, or Physics Today.... [A] general deterioration in quality, which came primarily
from excessive specialization and careerist sociology, meant quite literally that more was
worse." (20th Century Physics, pp. 2029).

But the interesting question is, what caused the "excessive specialization and careerist
sociology" that is making it very difficult for new ideas to be published in peer review journals?
There are several possibilities. One is a consequence of Anderson's observation that,
paradoxically, more scientists can mean a slower rate of scientific advance.

The number of physicists, for example, has increased by a factor of a thousand since the year 1900, when ten percent of all physicists in the world either won the Nobel Prize or were nominated for it. If you submitted a paper to a refereed journal in 1900, you would have a far greater chance of having a
referee who was a Nobel Prize winner (or at least a nominee) than now. In fact, a simple
calculation shows that one would have to submit three papers on the average to have an even
chance that at least one of your papers would be "peer" reviewed by a Nobel Prize winner.
Today, to have an even chance of having a Nobelist for a referee, you would have to submit
several hundred papers. Thus Albert Einstein had his revolutionary 1905 papers truly peer
reviewed: Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien were both later to win the Nobel Prize in physics.


Today, Einstein's papers would be sent to some total nonentity at Podunk U, who, being
completely incapable of understanding important new ideas, would reject the papers for
publication. "Peer" review is very unlikely to be peer review for the Einsteins of the world. We
have a scientific social system in which intellectual pygmies are standing in judgment of giants.
(See P. Stephan and S. Levin, Striking the Mother Lode in Science, chapter 7 for a detailed
discussion of the Pygmy Effect.)

One could argue that because the number of Nobel Prizes awarded is permanently fixed
at one per year in three scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, and medicine), the relative
decrease in Nobelists does not mean a similar decrease in the number of giants to pygmies. The
data contradict this proposal.




The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically
Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in
cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of
cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because “it least resembled the account in
Genesis” (my emphasis). In his book The First Three Minutes (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his
earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: “[O]ur mistake is not that we take our theories too
seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these
numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even
worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit
subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort.” I have now known Weinberg for over thirty years, and I know that he has always taken the equations of physics very seriously indeed. He and I are both convinced that the equations of


physics are the best guide to reality, especially when the predictions of these equations are
contrary to common sense. But as he himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an
automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard
nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established
in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Weinberg rejected this
standard physics not because he didn’t take the equations of physics seriously, but because he
did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. A recent poll of the members of the
National Academy of Sciences, published in Scientific American, indicated that more than ninety
percent are atheists. These men and women have built their entire worldview on atheism. They
would be exceedingly reluctant to admit that any result of science could be valid if it even
suggested that God could exist.




It's odd that you can live in home with air conditioning (Thermodynamics), lighted by electricity (Electromagnetics), and use a computer to post that you don't believe in the scientific method


Considering how screwed up Science has become with Darwinists runing everything,,

I would have to agree,

it is odd indeed


Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality
or Enforce Orthodoxy?
Frank J. Tipler
Professor of Mathematical Physics
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA 70118 USA
tipler@tulane.edu

Introduction
I first became aware of the importance that many non-elite scientists place on "peerreviewed"
or "refereed" journals when Howard Van Till, a theistic evolutionist, said my book
The Physics of Immortality was not worth taking seriously because the ideas it presented had
never appeared in refereed journals. Actually, the ideas in that book had already appeared in
refereed journals. The papers and the refereed journals wherein they appeared were listed at the
beginning of my book. My key predictions of the top quark mass (confirmed) and the Higgs
boson mass (still unknown) even appeared in the pages of Nature, the most prestigious refereed
science journal in the world. But suppose Van Till had been correct and that my ideas had never
been published in referred journals. Would he have been correct in saying that, in this case, the
ideas need not be taken seriously?

To answer this question, we first need to understand what the "peer review" process is.
That is, we need to understand how the process operates in theory, how it operates in practice,
what it is intended to accomplish, and what it actually does accomplish in practice. Also of
importance is its history. The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually
respectable until it has first appeared in a "peer" reviewed journal did not become widespread
until after World War II. Copernicus's heliocentric system, Galileo's mechanics, Newton's grand
synthesis-these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books,
reviewed prior to publication only by the authors or by the authors' friends. Even Darwin never
submitted his idea of evolution driven by natural selection to a journal to be judged by
"impartial" referees. Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of
Darwin's friends. And Darwin's article was completely ignored. Instead, Darwin made his ideas
known to his peers and to the world at large through a popular book: On the Origin of Species.
I shall argue that prior to the Second World War the refereeing process, even where it
existed, had www.iscid.org...


The faster we find the truth, the quicker the truth will set us free.

Evolution is intellectual bondage to the parasitic a-priori politics of dogmatic arrogance so afraind of God they have discriminated against him, forced him to not only be in a religion but IS a religion pretty hard to watch grown men acting this way saying they don't believe in God their is no evidence.

Behind closed doors however, they are begining another dialogue. One that suggests to many a theory of a being or beings so highly advanced they come off supernatural. Such phenomena has been cited in quantum mechanics where all the laws of nature are vilotated. Dimensions in time and space first described in Genesis and now are appearing to vindicate the bronze age books credibilty

That maybe,, just maybe their really is a "sky fairy" with places like heaven for believers and places like hell for,, well,, for people like you.

But it probably isn't true.

right?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"They are too bent on disqualifying good research inlieu of the politics of dogmatism ala Darwinian Dumbfoundedness when they just assume concensus science is good science."

Well, sweeping generalizations certainly do trump logic. You win.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


"dogmatic arrogance'?!?

Oh....that is rich!

There obviously is no such thing as dogmatism in religious circles, is there?

Pfft!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What a fascinating answer if you read between the lines there friend. Which translates thusly, "So? Your dogmatic too!". Kinda childish don't you think?
But that does characterise this entire argument does it not? People who call themselves Evolutionists *usually atheists hiding behind science breathing meaning into it that isn't there to support their religious stance* brutally attack the people that call themselves "religious" using one such insult as calling them dogmatic, yet bitching when they take modern findings into account and create an idea called "Intelligent Design", all the while still screaming dogmatic despite the fact they just tried to move forward albeit within their accepted paradigm.
Which really shows what this whole bullcrap argument is really about if you think about it. And don't worry I don't expect you to as most only really bother thinking about justifications to continue the whole bullcrap petty argument.
I just love when people who show no tolerance complain about others showing no tolerance. Show me what a lovely hypocritical world we live in.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join