Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

I agree op! Scientist openly believe falsehoods because they fear ridicule.. They would loose tenure or funding if they didn't.. Most replays here are from people who don't even know what the foundation of the scientific method is.. If they truly knew, they would have to agree and admit that evolution is what it is...a theory.. Theory's aren't meant to be proven.. Google it, research it.. A theory is just that.. A theory.. No one has proven evolution.. It can't be done using the scientific method.. I've yet to see a self replicating cell produced in a lab with ideal settings..

People argued that the earth was flat, swore it was fact.. Argued that the earth was the center of the universe.. Argued that the atom didn't exist.. Argued that light speed was infinite.. Recently argued that the Speed of light was constant, it's now been proven that its slowing down..

Evolutionists will continue to argue until another theory is put forth that explains existence without there being a creator.. I can't wait to run it in the evolution is fact group..

Great work OP..

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

There is a war going on and many understand different aspects of it, but when examined in total the only logical explanation is that there is an absolute full on assault through the new age movement and science to undermine Christianity via fantastic tales and hoaxes which they seek to hide via their compliant media whores.

Well, Christians are certainly ones to talk about "fantastic tales and hoaxes", aren't they?

Media whores?
What would you call TBN, and all the mega-rich preachers? Ooooh riiiight. They're doing the Lord's work, aren't they?

I won't argue that there are plenty of lies, untruths, and outright hoaxes in the world. And the academic fields are not immune from such. But to say there is an all out assault on Christianity is a bit much. It's hardly a logical explanation. Christianity is here because of a need to control the people to begin with. It works. So there is little reason for them to destroy what works so well on the masses.
Persecute it? Yes. Because persecution strengthens the resolve of believers to remain steadfast. Therefore, it is a very useful tool.

I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE BIGGEST HIGH FIVE RIGHT NOW! That was well put.

Originally posted by HooHaa
I agree op! Scientist openly believe falsehoods because they fear ridicule.. They would loose tenure or funding if they didn't..

What do you know about science and its practice? Are you associated with scientific research?

Most replays here are from people who don't even know what the foundation of the scientific method is.. If they truly knew, they would have to agree and admit that evolution is what it is...a theory.. Theory's aren't meant to be proven.. Google it, research it.. A theory is just that.. A theory.. No one has proven evolution.. It can't be done using the scientific method.. I've yet to see a self replicating cell produced in a lab with ideal settings..

This paragraph clearly demonstrates that you don't have a clue of what scientific theories are.

People argued that the earth was flat, swore it was fact.. Argued that the earth was the center of the universe.. Argued that the atom didn't exist.. Argued that light speed was infinite.. Recently argued that the Speed of light was constant, it's now been proven that its slowing down..

One time people even believed that we were created by some magic God, lol

Evolutionists will continue to argue until another theory is put forth that explains existence without there being a creator.. I can't wait to run it in the evolution is fact group..

Evolution is an attempt to explain the undeniable natural phenomenon of evolution. In essence, it's an explanation to the diversity of life that we observe. With evolution, it's very easy to for example explain the present day distribution of marsupials. How would you go about explaining their distribution with creationism? God saw it fit to place these animals into these specific places only because..? How do you explain hip bones in whales? Vestigial legs in snakes? While at it, explain mitochondria and chloroplast from your creationism point of view. God saw it fit to make these little organelles into animal, plant, protozoa, etc. cells and for lulz made it seem as if they were highly reduced alphaproteobacteria (cyanobacteria in case of chloroplasts) so it would look like they arised from ancient endosymbiotic events? It makes so much sense! Open your eyes!

If (against all odds) it turned out that there was some kind of afterlife and people were sorted into the nice place and the awful place, I'm pretty sure creationists would end up in the latter for being close-minded stubborn reality deniers..

reply to post by LiveEquation


I'm new to all this but how exactly is that evolution. You may be right just please explain how this would be evolution. Please provide me with a link where this happened. I find it really interesting. Would this be more of natural selection (survival of the fittest)?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by gotya
reply to post by randyvs

 

I had people knock on my door today inviting me to church.

The door of my house.

Sounds excruciating. Getting up off the couch, opening a door, getting a friendly
invitation to join some good people in giving thanks and showing some respect
to the giver of life. Bet you missed a closing cliffhanger to your favorite soap.

If churches are filled with smart asses like you, then count me out! Go spread the good word brother, and try not to trip over ego in the process!

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by HooHaa
I agree op! Scientist openly believe falsehoods because they fear ridicule..

I agree that the OP has done a tremendous job on this thread and the massive attacks are merely a reflection of the fact that she has exposed the truth.

Concerning Scientist's that fear ridicule...

They fear far more than just ridicule.

"...if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”

Updated List of Obviously Murdered Scientists

“Through interviews with representatives from both sides of the debate, Stein found out that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance, according to a news release.

In another case, Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian Theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

“If you just stand up and question Darwinism – that’s it – your career is over”

“Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning” said Stein in a news release.

“Scientists are not even allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”

Source

Why can't creation and science exist together? I think you have to have both of them in place to produce the complexities in nature.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Jahari
Why can't creation and science exist together? I think you have to have both of them in place to produce the complexities in nature.

Creation (as brought to you by ATS creationists) and science can't coexist because the former is reality denialism. If you want to say that God created everything by means of natural phenomena, I'm totally fine with that, although it just makes the whole thing ever so much more unlikely. I mean, if you think it's unlikely that the Universe just somehow came about. Well, how unlikely is it that a being that can create Universes just somehow came about? Apply Occam's razor. Then you might say that God always was and didn't need to come about. Well, you can just say that the potential for the becoming of the Universe always was and didn't need to come about. Again, non-God version wins when we apply Occam's razor. No matter what, supernatural entities add an infinite amount of complexity into the explanation, and thus seem infinitely more unlikely (not forgetting 100% absence of any evidence for them). So einfach ist das.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

No, no, no.

"Evolution" within a species is really adaptation.
Between species is evolution.

No one ever SAID that an ape and human or feline and caning are the same species. They're not, look at they phylogenies below. They are in the same taxon. A taxon is just a group. Family, class, order, whatever, any distinct group. They share common ancestry.

Primate phylogeny


Carnivore phylogeny

Thanks for those links. Pretty graphs. They did give me a thought...what if the evolutionist theory of common ancestor is not a being, creature or organism at all. It is the basic building blocks of all life, all of the elements that make up all of us living entities. C, F, H, O, P, Ca, Na and all elements that make up all matter in the universe, that we know of. That's why there is so much common DNA in all living things and the slight variations that separate us all. The distinct species were all created at the same time from the beginning.

"And Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..." Gen2:7

Oops, that just lends agreement to what the OP was talking about, evolution from a common ancestor over eons sounds ridiculous. Those two links don't prove anything. They just show someone's idea of what they want to believe about the origins of life. Until someone somewhere comes up with real archeological evidence of a common ancestor to all life, the evolution theory will remain a joke and comic book explanation to our beginnings. Until then creation needs to be taught in schools to our children and future generations along side the evolution farce. Or neither....

Originally posted by Jahari
Why can't creation and science exist together? I think you have to have both of them in place to produce the complexities in nature.

I very much believe faith in God and pursuit of science can co-exist and let the information lead where it will. Unfortunately, the atmosphere in the science community is to shut down anyone who would point to intelligent design no matter the data that is presented.

They lose their career which is loss of income, which destroys family, and they face ridicule when once they were highly praised. We are talking about scientists from the highest and most respected educational institutions who have accepted ID to be ruined and black balled from ever working again.

This is nothing but a bunch of bullies in charge of Journals, schools, research institutes etc who have an agenda to push, and if you don't go along then you might as well not become a scientist.

For those wanting a discussion on how life began that can allow for science and religious discussion I started a thread on it. I do believe it is an excellent topic and just ask for mature discussion and civility.

How DNA killed Evolution

Originally posted by blockhead
That's why there is so much common DNA in all living things and the slight variations that separate us all. The distinct species were all created at the same time from the beginning.

Okay then, show me a 2 billion year old fossil of some temporary animal like a camel or a rabbit. We should be finding thousands of such things if all these species existed already then. You'd think that a simple fact such as this would be enough to make people understand that life has changed over time, but no, reality denialists keep on denying reality. It's like their brains shut off when they read a sentence like that. "No, no, no, I didn't just read that, I refuse to process this analytically.. hurrr"

They just show someone's idea of what they want to believe about the origins of life. Until someone somewhere comes up with real archeological evidence of a common ancestor to all life, the evolution theory will remain a joke and comic book explanation to our beginnings. Until then creation needs to be taught in schools to our children and future generations along side the evolution farce. Or neither....

You do understand that the common ancestor to all life (on Earth) was a single celled organism? What kind of archeological evidence did you have in mind? Also, which version of creation did you have in mind? I mean to teach at school? I suppose the Hindu version since it's nearly not as ridiculous and against everything we know like say the Abrahamic creation myth?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Those people are not bullies, they are just logical. You are just mad because they wont teach science fiction in schools.

Evolution has flaws, and so dose religion. The only thing that separates the two is Evolution has FACTS.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I very much believe faith in God and pursuit of science can co-exist and let the information lead where it will. Unfortunately, the atmosphere in the science community is to shut down anyone who would point to intelligent design no matter the data that is presented.

Maybe that's because the people pushing intelligent design aren't very good at their research and presentation. If there's a theory to sell, and there's a good reason to sell it, and you have all the facts, then there should be no problem. I have a very difficult time believing that the entirety of the scientific community is conspiring against theists.

This is nothing but a bunch of bullies in charge of Journals, schools, research institutes etc who have an agenda to push, and if you don't go along then you might as well not become a scientist.

I didn't know we were in the business of blind accusations. I expected better of you.

Oh come on OP...

Evolution can literally be observed in rapidly reproducing species such as fruit flies.... the advent of anti-biotic resistant bacteria is a great example of evolution.

The fact that no one can explain origin of the initial life forms doesn't discredit the evolutionary process as fact.

The examples of hoaxing you provide don't discredit the evolutionary theory either.

Can a evolutionist explain to me how the universe came into being please? I guess I just don't get either side of the argument. Science can't ignored the creator aspect when trying to explain life. Its just not scientific. Because its a possibility. Creationist can't just blindle believe in a man made religion because is FN crazy. You have to have both to truly explain life. Until then imo you will only come up with theories and fairytales.

Originally posted by HooHaa
I agree op! Scientist openly believe falsehoods because they fear ridicule.. They would loose tenure or funding if they didn't.. Most replays here are from people who don't even know what the foundation of the scientific method is.. If they truly knew, they would have to agree and admit that evolution is what it is...a theory.. Theory's aren't meant to be proven.. Google it, research it.. A theory is just that.. A theory.. No one has proven evolution.. It can't be done using the scientific method.. I've yet to see a self replicating cell produced in a lab with ideal settings..

People argued that the earth was flat, swore it was fact.. Argued that the earth was the center of the universe.. Argued that the atom didn't exist.. Argued that light speed was infinite.. Recently argued that the Speed of light was constant, it's now been proven that its slowing down..

Evolutionists will continue to argue until another theory is put forth that explains existence without there being a creator.. I can't wait to run it in the evolution is fact group..

Great work OP..

Evolution-related hypotheses have been supported. Hypotheses are supported, which validate theories. A theory itself cannot be proved, because linguistically that wouldn't make any sense. Once it is proved it can no longer be a theory. And nothing ever has enough evidence to be 100% proven, ever, in any field. You work off of pieces of evidence that back up your hypothesis about something that you think is correct.

That's actually how the thinking process works, too.

Here is an explanation of the scientific method, hypotheses, theories, etc. so that you can use them correctly in context