Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Wow, you are basing all that crap you said on two minutes of this video? Holy crap, no wonder students come out of college with zero to show for it! You have strong beliefs on this and yet you are unwilling to watch a video that is showing a great deal of EVIDENCE and then write all the crap you find wrong with creationists and what's right with evolution and yet you won't even avail yourself of the other side's information. I hope to God you never sit on a jury. You will look at the person and decide in two seconds if they are innocent or guilty rather than hearing the evidence.

And what's the scientific excuse for the most part ? Voice tone and hand gesture. Unbelievably laughable.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Krazysh0t
How do you know that the bible is correct? "Because (in the bible) God says it is his divine words."

How do you know that evolution is correct?

Because the divine words of the priests of the TPTB backed religion called "Science" SAYS so.

It is believed TOTALLY by blind faith.

Evolution is COMPLETELY contradicted by evidence and science.

The laws of probability have PROVEN that the Bible is a construction of God and show that it is a complete impossibility that any man could have thought it up.

Evolution on the other hand is a complete mathematical impossibility...

One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why? He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it. One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point. Source

randyvs
Krazysh0t
reply to post by randyvs

 

Great, you focus on the most inconsequential part of my whole post. Would you please kindly respond to the rest of it now? (See I even saidSo once again I ask that you remain polite. I haven't typed anything insulting to you, so I hope you can provide the same courtesy to me and others who subscribe to the Evolution theory (Evolutionists isn't a word)
please

You believe in evolutionism, a simple minded stab at getting away from the real truth and the responsibilities that come with it. And in doing so you practically demand others follow suit. What I've done in this thread is ask you, to explain all the holes in your theory that makes zero sense, where creation leaves none. In the end, all you want me to do is believe a magic show can happen without any magician being present. It's absurd and you know it. How do I know you know ? Because you have a decent brain. God given to you, but unappreciated.

So is evolutionist a word or not ?

NO ONE HAS DONE WHAT THE THREAD ASKS. BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PERIOD

edit on 9-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Just to get it out of the way because I don't feel like having a conversation about if "Evolutionist" is or isn't a word. I'll let this thread from another forum do my talking for me. www.sciforums.com...

By calling it simple minded you have just said that every Scientist who has postulated theories and peer reviewed the evidence presented in Evolution is also simple minded. I have explained why the theory of evolution has hole in it. But just in case I'll say it again. Science works by filling in the holes one at a time. As one hole is filled up, new ones are created. This leads Scientists to now try to fill in those holes. As more and more holes are filled up, a working theory can soon be used to describe the phenomenon that the scientists are witnessing. This doesn't however mean that all the holes have been filled in. The beauty of this whole process is that as new evidence comes to light, the scientists can either fill in a new hole or scrap the whole theory to think up a new one (has to take into account all prior evidence in addition to the new one).

No theory should EVER not have holes in it. To do so would be arrogant of the Scientist because we (humans) don't know everything. This is why Creationism fails. It assumes to explain everything. Not to mention the answer to all the questions to everything is God. If anything that is a far more simple minded answer than anything presented in the theory of Evolution.

Actually, evolution doesn't address WHY it happened it only addresses HOW it happened. God still could have developed life through evolution. Nowhere in the theory does it state why evolution happens. It just observes how it happens. This is another problem with the creationist argument. They seem to confuse these two simple words: "How" and "Why." Evolution is "How"; God or random chance is "Why." I don't actually claim that a God or Gods doesn't exist, it's entirely possible that He, She, It, They exist, BUT if existence is true, evolution is how they did it.

reply to post by Murgatroid


First off, I don't know if it is true at all. I don't claim to know anything absolutely. Second, I strongly believe that it is true based on many years of peer reviewed articles written by many different scientists all backing it up. That is FAR more material than the entire bible and all you have to go on is the book of Genesis. You choose to disbelieve the scientists. Well my friend that is on you. You try to dismiss the entire field of science as something being pushed by the devil. I can't really help you there, you are denying real evidence due to a fantastical reason.

no mention of RH Negative..

I couldn't watch the vid anymore.
This guy is just rambling on with his own theories.

I say it's a load.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Krazysh0t
I strongly believe that it is true based on many years of peer reviewed articles written by many different scientists all backing it up. You choose to disbelieve the scientists.

Not so...

I choose to disbelieve PUPPETS.

Scientists are not even ALLOWED to look for the truth...

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

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

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

“Just stand up and question Darwinism, you'll find out how risky that is...”

“Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out. – Dr. Crocker”

“I have been told to “shut up!” – Dr. Lonnig

Source

FYI, peer reviewed sources are totally useless.

The whole Peer review system is riddled with corruption.

Science is the most corrupt area of academics there is.

The peer review process is used to promote rampant fraud.

Scientific fraud, however, is rampant amongst nearly all of the sciences and no "peer review" is immune. In fact, peer review is the problem.

This brings into question the so-called scientific process of peer review that is often cited as if it were holy writ and the end-all, be-all of truth. "It`s peer reviewed," they scream when anyone questions their research or evidence. The rejoinder should ask, "Peer reviewed by whom?"

The blame lies in the way that science is conducted with all other reasons emanating from this core paradigm change.

Peer review, however, has no such requirements. It is merely the opinion of the reviewing scientists who read the original work and give an editorial on it. No tests or double-checking of facts or methods are required. Basically, with peer review, someone writes a study paper and it is then sent to a group of scientific critics to either blast or praise it.

Professor Charlton is right. Peer review is bunk and is just editorializing in the name of science. It is because of this practice that the rampant fraud and misleading conclusions of scientific research is so prevalent today.

The Scientific Fraud Pandemic: Few Honest Scientists Remain

Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.

How to Fix Peer Review

theoretically, atheism as a popular world view, is roman catholicism part 2. it was started as a popular world view by roman catholic professors who taught at the catholic run universities. so i just think of it as roman catholicsm part 2.

reply to post by Murgatroid


it has all the hallmarks of roman catholicism, doesn't it?
their colleagues are not allowed to ask questions.
those who do will either:

1. lose their job
2. get blacklisted
3. are considered mentally deficient, even if they have high IQs and more degrees than their detractors

no one here is mentally deficient. the atheists are not, neither are the agnostics or believers. we are quite intelligent. the issue is a matter of world view, not a matter of intellect.

I find all these theories of Fallen Angels, the Nephilim, Demons and nearly anything else related to the matter quite amusing. No evidence of anything at all whatsoever, yet they continue to come up with these ridiculous arguments. I'm all for believing in whatever it is that you want to believe in private but please spare the rest of us who live in the real world.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

By calling it simple minded you have just said that every Scientist who has postulated theories and peer reviewed the evidence presented in Evolution is also simple minded

No, I said what I said. Without the add ons. But I'm not afraid to let you have it your way.
What ? Am I supposed to be ?

Science works by filling in the holes one at a time. As one hole is filled up, new ones are created. This leads Scientists to now try to fill in those holes. As more and more holes are filled up, a working theory can soon be used to describe the phenomenon that the scientists are witnessing

Sounds like putting the cart before the horse to me. No holes in the story left by creation. To try an fill as we go along. Look to me your riduculous. Sorry if that offends you but maybe if you quit believing the lies you paid to believe in we might get some where with you. And actually give you something to look forward to.

reply to post by mczinger

no mention of RH Negative..

Woe woe hey stop the presses. Somebody said sump'in.

Zinger what are you getting at please ?

This might actually go somewhere.

Murgatroid
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Krazysh0t
I strongly believe that it is true based on many years of peer reviewed articles written by many different scientists all backing it up. You choose to disbelieve the scientists.

Not so...

I choose to disbelieve PUPPETS.

Scientists are not even ALLOWED to look for the truth...

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

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

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

“Just stand up and question Darwinism, you'll find out how risky that is...”

“Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out. – Dr. Crocker”

“I have been told to “shut up!” – Dr. Lonnig

Source

FYI, peer reviewed sources are totally useless.

The whole Peer review system is riddled with corruption.

Science is the most corrupt area of academics there is.

The peer review process is used to promote rampant fraud.

Scientific fraud, however, is rampant amongst nearly all of the sciences and no "peer review" is immune. In fact, peer review is the problem.

This brings into question the so-called scientific process of peer review that is often cited as if it were holy writ and the end-all, be-all of truth. "It`s peer reviewed," they scream when anyone questions their research or evidence. The rejoinder should ask, "Peer reviewed by whom?"

The blame lies in the way that science is conducted with all other reasons emanating from this core paradigm change.

Peer review, however, has no such requirements. It is merely the opinion of the reviewing scientists who read the original work and give an editorial on it. No tests or double-checking of facts or methods are required. Basically, with peer review, someone writes a study paper and it is then sent to a group of scientific critics to either blast or praise it.

Professor Charlton is right. Peer review is bunk and is just editorializing in the name of science. It is because of this practice that the rampant fraud and misleading conclusions of scientific research is so prevalent today.

The Scientific Fraud Pandemic: Few Honest Scientists Remain

Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.

How to Fix Peer Review

edit on 9-9-2013 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..

The only scientists who run into problems are those who are hired to teach science and try to introduce religion into it. Crocker for example stands out in that instance. The concept that scientists are forbidden from seeking the truth is one of the most absurd assertations I've seen in this thread. It's not just absurd it's completely dishonest. If people weren't allowed to do their research then how do new finds come to light or revisions made to hypothesis? Science is constantly updating itself as new data is accrued. When was the last time that the Bible, Qran, Torah. Talmud or the Vedas were updated ? It's been four hundred and two years since the KJV was printed and that was a revision of a revision commissioned by Henry VIII when he created the COE. The only "scientists" who think the establishment is screwing them are the ones doing crappy work of no merit.

grey580
I couldn't watch the vid anymore.
This guy is just rambling on with his own theories.

I say it's a load.

Well I guess we can all wrap it up and go home then.

here ya go

reply to post by undo

it has all the hallmarks of roman catholicism, doesn't it?

Interesting idea...

I see Roman catholicism as JUST as deceptive as "science" is.

The issue is NOT anyone's mental ability, IQ, or intellect...

The issue is that we are being lied to from every direction.

That includes science, AND religion.

reply to post by peter vlar

The only scientists who run into problems are those who are hired to teach science and try to introduce religion into it. Crocker for example stands out in that instance. The concept that scientists are forbidden from seeking the truth is one of the most absurd assertations I've seen in this thread. It's not just absurd it's completely dishonest. If people weren't allowed to do their research then how do new finds come to light or revisions made to hypothesis? Science is constantly updating itself as new data is accrued. When was the last time that the Bible, Qran, Torah. Talmud or the Vedas were updated ? It's been four hundred and two years since the KJV was printed and that was a revision of a revision commissioned by Henry VIII when he created the COE. The only "scientists" who think the establishment is screwing them are the ones doing crappy work of no merit.

Is this what you're referring to Peter ?

From some of your own peers. and colleagues.

reply to post by peter vlar


FACT: Science is the most corrupt area of academics there is.

Anyone who can't admit that fact is COMPLETELY out of touch with reality.

"Science" and education are nothing but MASSIVE forms of mind control...

randyvs
reply to post by peter vlar

 

The only scientists who run into problems are those who are hired to teach science and try to introduce religion into it. Crocker for example stands out in that instance. The concept that scientists are forbidden from seeking the truth is one of the most absurd assertations I've seen in this thread. It's not just absurd it's completely dishonest. If people weren't allowed to do their research then how do new finds come to light or revisions made to hypothesis? Science is constantly updating itself as new data is accrued. When was the last time that the Bible, Qran, Torah. Talmud or the Vedas were updated ? It's been four hundred and two years since the KJV was printed and that was a revision of a revision commissioned by Henry VIII when he created the COE. The only "scientists" who think the establishment is screwing them are the ones doing crappy work of no merit.

Is this what you're referring to Peter ?

From some of your own peers. and colleagues.

edit on 7-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

From your own examples, could you explain how Gonzalez was ostracized for his views when there was already a course on ID at Iowa state? He seems like he's teaching at the right school now for his views to reach the appropriate audience. I don't know much about Sternberg so I can't really comment in him but from what I've seen from both of your examples the main "evidence" for mainstream science rejecting them is solely existing in their own words and blogs. There's not much else to back up the claims. Additionally, the main reason for rejecting tenure for Gonzalez was that he faed to live up to his expectations and brought in$0 in grants during his time at ISU. It really had nothing to do with his views on creation/ID. For Sternberg, I'm shocked you used him as an example being that his issue results from a peer review publication he edited and I thought in your land peer review was just a big a shill as evolution. Seems a dichotomous hypocrisy continues to reveal itself as the thread progresses.

reply to post by peter vlar


What, am I supposed to know the guy ? You can read just the same as I can. Prolly better.

Go ahead and be as shocked as can be. That makes no difference to me.