100 things which evolutionites hate

@farmerman,

Quote:

I assume then, that you have nothing to do with the sciences. Especially biological research. (DISCARDING, even a theory unpopular to you, without considering the interlacing of the various disciplines and the facts underlying their evidence, is more an act of vandalism than a carefully considered scientific conclusion).

Any theory found good for nothing is discarded, like the theory of Le Verrier with the hypothetical planet Vulcan.

The same as well, the hypothetical gradual favorable changes from worse to better from simpler to more complex, and from inferior to superior, theorized in the theory of evolution is discarded.

The "re-invented" theory of evolution from the 70's, called "the Neo-Darwinian" theory of evolution, which "discards 99% of the former theory of evolution" in order to be replaced by a new attempt, which is solely "change", is also discarded, because the observations reveal "a change with an arrow", and that this arrow is degenerate steps.

So, you have a good for nothing theory of evolution because can't explain the real process of life on earth.

Now well, the observation is a RECYCLING PROCESS OF LIFE ON EARTH.

This fact is no in need of explanation.

If you ignored this concept in science, well, I will explain it to you. Facts do not need of explanation, facts are facts.

You can ask about the mechanism of the process, and here is when a theory might originates from the fact.

So far, the observation stands and I have noticed that you have no argument against it, because you can't argue against a fact.

And, for your mental book, the one you storage in your head, lets define a "theory of science".

I say, "theory of science" as a whole concept to be defined, because the meaning of the word "theory" in general might be different when subjected to the different branches of knowledge others than science.

A theory of science, is an attempt to explain a certain class of phenomena by deducing them as a consequence of other phenomena observed as more primitive and factual.(and by such, no in need of explanation)

This is to say, you can't create a theory based in something that doesn't exist physically. A theory of science must be based solely in facts.

Any other is nothing but hypothesis.

THE RECYCLING PROCESS OF LIFE ON EARTH is a fact.

Now, if you don't think so, I urge you to apply all your knowledge in biology to discard THE RECYCLING PROCESS OF LIFE ON EARTH fact.

Be my guess.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

You said

Quote:

why do you use Lamarck as some kind of benchmark? Drwin dismisses him in his brief dicussions...

Lamarck, Geoffroy, and Darwin belong to the same gang, they might differ on the use of knives and guns, but their thoughts are "exactly" the same when they thought that current species come from simpler, worst and inferior ancestors.

Darwin said it clearly in his book "The Origin of Species"

Quote:

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations; it can only produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. Recapitulation and Conclusion.

You can't erase what he said. He didn't write that sentence in the middle of his frustrations, he wrote it as a "recapitulation and conclusion", so for him was his "final word". No more changes.

You must accept this crude reality, Darwin passed to be one more patient of the "lunatic asylum" mentioned by Cuvier.

Quote:

Cuvier: Lamarck? That's impossible!

Geoffroy: Lamarck and I are each writing a philosophy of zoology!

Cuvier: Am I in the Jardin or a lunatic asylum?

Lol.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Quote:

Lamarck, Geoffroy, and Darwin belong to the same gang, they might differ on the use of knives and guns, but their thoughts are "exactly" the same when they thought that current species come from simpler, worst and inferior ancestors.

wow, we don't have time for a history lesson but you are dead wrong. Either that or you really have NOT read your Darwin, (Admit it)

Cuvier, besides being a catstrophist AGREED with the dumass beliefs of Lamaarck and Buffon regarding SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. Wanna go further?

Quote:

You can't erase what he said. He didn't write that sentence in the middle of his frustrations, he wrote it as a "recapitulation and conclusion",

It was hichapter titles in the various editions. What you failed to do was to include the many many other points that address nd explain what he actually mean. I can expect no more from folks whose history is perfecting the art of quote mining.I suggest gathering and reading editions 2, 3 and 4 pages 222 through 237 to see how Darwin expands his various conclusion paragraphs .

Quote:

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations; it can only produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. Recapitulation and Conclusion

SO, from about a 15 page section, this is the only thing you saw firt to clip? Does the rest not firt your worldview? OR , more likely, does the rest give you reason to engage your brain?

As I said, in edition 3 , Drwin dismisses E st Hillaire, and Lamarck. (cuvier was admittedly but "collector nd classifier" more like Buffon)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

It won't matter how many new editions add more explanations to Darwin's ideas. He was another wrong learning (read: ignorant).

No one of the past biologists and philosophers got it, oh, wait, yes, one record of the past got what is going on in the universe.

You won't like the source, but this source has not "new editions" to add more information and neither to modify what it has been written.

The sons of Korah, in the Psalm 49:2 say the following.

"Hear this all you peoples, give ear all you dwellers of decaying earth."

Use the Hebrew Tanach in order to read this part in a proper way. The rest of "bibles" translate this part different, omitting the "decayed earth" words.

So, from great scientists and philosophers, since ancient times, only one source so far mentions the decay of our planet. If our planet decays, then life on earth decays as well.

In my search for at least one source to be in agreement with my position that species do not evolve but degenerate, is when I found this biblical verse.

I suppose the sons of Korah observed the age of the biblical ancestors, and how from hundreds of years longevity, it ended with tens of years. By deduction they might have concluded that the cause was a decaying earth... who knows.

The point, is that there is no evolution of species, the whole thing is a myth, a lie, a common belief, anything but a scientific approach because is based in wrong learning.

There is no need to discuss the beliefs of scientists and philosophers of the past, enough is to show their words.

4 Replies

@carloslebaron,

Quote:

You won't like the source, but this source has not "new editions" to add more information and neither to modify what it has been written.

....

Use the Hebrew Tanach in order to read this part in a proper way. The rest of "bibles" translate this part different, omitting the "decayed earth" words.

You kind of lose all credibility when you admit your source that has no new editions has been translated differently in different editions.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Those who asset that they "know" all the truth are those Id keep an Eye on. I freely admit that science is rife wth ignorance and that's why the scientists keep at it. They are not so sure that what they've found out is really the truth, so they keep looking and testing nd testing what they've found previously.

Books have editions based on new stuff, and new stuff is always being found out , and scientists just love to be the first guys to claim they've found this new stuff.

So, calling us ignorant means that you at least understand why science does what it does. Instead of saying lauds and vespers , folks of science happily schlep off to work and lay their ignorance out and try to fill in the holes with their work.

I think I like my way better than yours.

2 Replies

@carloslebaron,

Quote:

If our planet decays, then life on earth decays as well.

Yeh but we party like its the Permian

0 Replies

@carloslebaron,

Quote:

The point, is that there is no evolution of species, the whole thing is a myth, a lie, a common belief, anything but a scientific approach because is based in wrong learning.

and you know this how? Are you saying tht all this stuff weve learned from genetics, embryology, biochemistry, and paleontology is a lie eh?
What one of the "100" points do you wish to argue? (I suppose the inerrancy of the Bible claim" eh?

OH YEH---Is this "100 things..." your web site? Are you the author?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Funny how someone can believe the Earth was created in 7 days despite there being no evidence whatsoever, but has problems accepting that the Holocaust occurred despite there being shedloads of evidence.

Carloslebaron is a nasty, small minded, bigoted, Holocaust denier.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I haven't been following him any where else so I was a bit surprised that hes a Holocaust denier. With his fundamentalist worldview and that additional bit, Id say that he fits comfortably in the "skinhead" category.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I've not been following him either, but I've come across him. (He doesn't like homosexuals either.)

Quote:

Writing postings after postings full of nonsenses won't cover up the true reality that science has debunked the holocaust hypothesis.

http://able2know.org/topic/256530-6#post-5785665

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You kind of lose all credibility when you admit your source that has no new editions has been translated differently in different editions.

You said it, "Translated differently in different editions". The original words still stand.

However, in the case of the theory of evolution, it's complete and radical changes in the meaning of their doctrines in every new edition.

The theory of evolution originated itself because wrong learning (read: ignorance) and nothing will fix it right.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

So you are arguing that the King James Bible is the same as the International National Standard version?

Let's just look at 2 verses and see if they are the same.

Quote:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Quote:

1 In the beginning, God created the universe.[a] 2 When the earth was as yet unformed and desolate, with the surface of the ocean depths shrouded[c] in darkness, and while the Spirit of God was hovering[d] over the surface of the waters, 3 God said, “Let there be light!” So there was light.

No. Not the same. I would consider it 2 different editions.The definition of "edition" would say they are 2 editions. They use different words.

2 Replies

@parados,

according to carlo, any cientific theory MUST, by virtue of its comparion to the Bible, remain static nd unchanging even when new facts and data are discovered.

HMMM, I remember when "science" was concerened with
spontaneous generation wherein rotting meat cold spring forth life from nothing

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Those who asset that they "know" all the truth are those Id keep an Eye on. I freely admit that science is rife wth ignorance and that's why the scientists keep at it. They are not so sure that what they've found out is really the truth, so they keep looking and testing nd testing what they've found previously.

Books have editions based on new stuff, and new stuff is always being found out , and scientists just love to be the first guys to claim they've found this new stuff.

So, calling us ignorant means that you at least understand why science does what it does. Instead of saying lauds and vespers , folks of science happily schlep off to work and lay their ignorance out and try to fill in the holes with their work.

I think I like my way better than yours.

OK. This is it.

I will tell you what your "thinking" is about when you believe in the theory of evolution.

Your theory's tests made to verify its validity or scientific approaches are the "fish, shark, and whale" of the following story. This story indeed happened in a TV children's program,

(The riddle from below is a translation but it keeps the original intention or meaning)

The host of a children's TV show made a riddle to be solved by them.
"My uncle goes,
my uncle comes back,
and in the middle of the way
his shoes stuck."

The answer is the door guard latch.

http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mja7yY1uHMvTR0TWOq3qhnw.jpg

Between the different answers given by the children, one of them said very loudly, "the fish!".

This answer caused the host to laugh and she said, "no, it's not the fish"

Then, another boy cried loud, "the shark!"

The host laughed again, "no, it's not the shark".

Then, another boy cried harder than the rest, "the whale!

The host started to lose her patience...

Well, this is what the theory of evolution is about, "the fish, the shark, the whale", always the wrong approach, always the wrong guess, always the wrong direction, always evading the right path to solve the riddle, and by such, always wrong learning. (read: ignorance)

Yes, the theory of evolution is deliberated ignorance.

And, do you expect me to be part of such a ridiculous?

Lol... no way Jose.

0 Replies

that argument is simply ludicrous. No specifics at all. One can as well say that your argument is the fish, the shark and the whale, since you haven't dealt at all with what you find wrong. You're as vapid as quahog is. (and that riddle doesn't make any apparent sense in English. Try another translation).

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

and you know this how? Are you saying tht all this stuff weve learned from genetics,

Wait! wait! wait! hold your horse right there!

Excuse me but pardon me. genetics was ignored by evolutionists.

A monk (religious dude) is whom discovered genetics and made experiments in base of his discovering. The works of Gregory Mendel weren't intended to support any silly theory of evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetics

And, I can tell you this, If Mendel was alive when evolutionists found out about his experiments, then surely Mendel will oppose to any attempt of evolutionists of using his works to support such a silly theory.

In other words, evolutionists have stolen the works of Mendel to be included in their stupid theory.

Face it. Having Mendel alive in those years, evolutionists should have no chance of any survival, because Mendel would choose to use his works to support creation.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Funny how someone can believe the Earth was created in 7 days despite there being no evidence whatsoever, but has problems accepting that the Holocaust occurred despite there being shedloads of evidence.

Carloslebaron is a nasty, small minded, bigoted, Holocaust denier.

Ha ha ha ha...

I thought idiots were on strike, but I can see that they weren't.... obviously they are working harder than ever with their Holocaust arguments everywhere...

By the way, the "Earth" created in seven days? the "Earth"?!

Ha ha ha ha....

I really am having a good time here... I really do...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I haven't been following him any where else so I was a bit surprised that hes a Holocaust denier. With his fundamentalist worldview and that additional bit, Id say that he fits comfortably in the "skinhead" category.

You must understand the following, that whatever you think about me won't change a single bit that the theory of evolution is a fallacy.

This theory, by searching its historical records, started with the fixed idea that our current species are descendants of worse, simpler and inferior species. And because this idea, they called it the theory of "evolution".

And currently, the original idea of the theory of evolution haven't changed a little bit, when we observe that the doctrines of this theory still have the fundaments of the racist people who idealized them.

Until today, this theory argues that we are descendants of apes, and evolutionists consider black people of Africa as "worse, simpler and inferior" humans who didn't evolved as the other races did in the other continents.

For this racist reason, evolutionists insist that the first humans come from Africa, when by fact, the first humans (including first societies) are located as originated from Asia.

And you can call me whatever you want, but I'm not a racist, I do not support that kind of doo doo.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So you are arguing that the King James Bible is the same as the International National Standard version?

Let's just look at 2 verses and see if they are the same.

No. I'm not arguing any King James or International National Standard versions. Those are "translations" from the original Hebrew.

The original Hebrew stands still, while the translations modify the Hebrew scriptures according to the religious denomination preferences.

On the other hand, with the theory of evolution, the 99% of the original theory have been modified. Only titles and inherited racist intentions still stand in this good for nothing theory.

1 Reply

100 things which evolutionites hate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know