10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 

Now we're talking! Thanks!
Thats what I am talking about!
A test of the highest magnitude.
One only faith can decipher in the end!
Brilliant!
And the perfect way to seperate the 'save-ables".
Now I sound like a know it all. Jeez...


[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


Rather like how others limit the possibilities as to what a "god" entails and it would or would not, or what it should or should not do and thusly dismiss it?

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Here a partial list from the stated website. I am listing because I feel that many will not look because it is a religous site. Kinda narrow minded to bash a creationist for not learning your beliefs and not be willing to look at some very reputable scientists who believe in creationism. Instead of just disregarding why not actually look up some of these people. Try also to remember many scientists are wise enough to keep thier beliefs to themselves in order to protect their careers because so many others in the scientific community are very narrow minded.

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 

Star! Thanks!


There are many scientists who believe in creationism.

I wanted to second that!
Thanks also for the links!



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


You could very well just sum all that up to just "Darwing got 30% correct or less". His theory on human evolution has more holes than a swiss cheese.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 

Thanks Larry!


I don't get why so many religious fanatics dismiss the idea either. Isn't it possible it was "God's" plan to have evolution?

You are wise and insightfull!


If anything, there's enough evidence to dismiss the beliefs and fairy tales of Christianity but we won't get into that.

Thank you for your opinion and restraint!




[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_
reply to post by dodadoom
 


You could very well just sum all that up to just "Darwing got 30% correct or less". His theory on human evolution has more holes than a swiss cheese.



So does Christianity.



Many rather believe the planet is a couple thousand years old. Why? Because I don't think they understand the concept of science....or anything about it.

Sorry to offend some followers of that religious institution, but yeah...



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Just a few more for you Oz :

1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device

2) Dr. Raymond Jones - CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
consumption

3) Dr. Keith Wanser - 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
(Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)

4) Dr. Russell Humphreys - successful planetary magnetic predictions
(nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )

5) Dr. Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard

6) Jules H. Poirier - designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
Landing Module

7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa - discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo

8) Dr. Saami Shaibani - "International Expert" by the US Depts of Labor and
Justice. 100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
physics professor and researcher)

www.creationinfo.com...

The reason I did the overkill with the names is so you will see that there are indeed scientists who believe in creationism. They are not pastors or priests and they do know a bit more than "squat" as you so eloquently worded it.




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Maslo
 


Um, yes it is. What do you imagine "peer review" entails? So called "experts" or perhaps if you look at it from a certain point of view "leaders" review the information and decide it's validity. Of course it's a tad more complex than that but that is it in a nut shell.

Unless you view it as some sort of absolute authoritarian regime that hands down absolute judgements of "fact".

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


Oh, you got me

Peer review can be compared to democracy, but I didnt mean it that way. In democracy all opinions are equal, but in science ( and in peer review) only the opinions which are supported by facts and actual science should matter. I wanted to say that science theory shouldnt be preferred because of peoples opinions (like democracy), but only because it is supported by evidence and explains it, even if people preffered it to be false. Personal opinions about "how it should be" shouldnt be important in good science.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 

Holy Moly!
I am so busted, you are right!
I haven't looked at it!
Thank you so much for posting it.
I hope Oz and Chadwick comes back and checks this out too!
Now I'm really curious......



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


And how does peer review beat mankind's seeming obcession with playing politics? Science does not transcend it's creator after all. It's subject to the same problems that any other human population is suseptable to.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


"Two wrongs does not equal a right." But it is funny that you snap back attacking his percieved religion when he questions Darwin.... Implying something rather telling.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by thomas_
 


You could very well just sum all that up to just "Darwing got 30% correct or less". His theory on human evolution has more holes than a swiss cheese.

I know, huh!
But go easy on him, he is entitled to his opinion also!
He was just a man, not a god.
Its just his theory/opinion got a bit more noticed!
Star!



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 

You are right.
It comes down to faith once again.
There is no way one person has all the answers!
Ya, the belief in a young planet is bs...
Star and a thanks!


[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Maslo
 


And how does peer review beat mankind's seeming obcession with playing politics? Science does not transcend it's creator after all. It's subject to the same problems that any other human population is subjectable to.


Yes, science is not perfect and mistakes or even intentional frauds happen even here, there is no point in idealizing anything. I wanted to say it SHOULD be independent of personal motives and opinions. Not that it always is.

Only nature should be the ultimate guide in science...



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


"Two wrongs does not equal a right." But it is funny that you snap back attacking his percieved religion when he questions Darwin.... Implying something rather telling.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


He's not questioning, he's attacking.

I'm simply telling the truth about how silly it is to believe the planet is a couple thousand years old. EDIT//I won't get into attacking someone's ability to do research on here, I'll use some respect and restraint.

You can believe in whatever Religious God you want to believe in, that's fine. But some things don't add up and there's no denying such..

Now let's stay on topic, thanks.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

[edit on 14-11-2009 by GorehoundLarry]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Agreed. Humanity being what we are, all I was saying was "Let's be realistic.". A great many aren't and deify science with peer review being some form of ultimate guide.
I prefer to take all claims with a grain of salt. Be it science, spirituality, religion, politics, well any claim that can be made.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


You missed where he said it was crazy to believe that the Earth was only 1000s of years old didn't you? He was questioning.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
If there is a God, then surely he must prefer logic and reason to blind faith.
He has made us inquisitive, and yet doesn't want us to question?

I will take human science and evolution theory over faith in the unknown,
and if I am found wrong, on judgment day I will ask God why he leaves
clues about our origin that run counter to what he would have us take on
blind faith...

...and just as I am being banished into the realm of hell...

...I am going to ask him what my males teats are for...

...and did the dinosaurs have male teats as well...

...and how come they aren't mentioned (teat-less or not) in any bible...


I'll probably have to be talking ~really~ fast...lol



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


You missed where he said it was crazy to believe that the Earth was only 1000s of years old didn't you? He was questioning.


I wasn't speaking of him. I was speaking in general about such Christians.

Thanks.





top topics
 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join