9
   

15 PHD level scientists say evolution is a bunch of bullshit

 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 07:52 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Actually I do not, as the bearer of a theory, must present the evidence that supports that theory......

Look it up Einstein..

Next.


Show us yer god. Evidence for science is abundant, as is your denialism.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 07:53 pm
@FBM,
Actually I do not, as the bearer of a theory, is the one who must present evidence for that theory.

Look it up Einstein.

Next
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 07:54 pm
@FBM,
Are you claiming that God created life in a warm pond?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 07:56 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Are you claiming that God created life in a warm pond?


God's your fantasy, not mine. Show some evidence for it, please.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 07:58 pm
Quote:
Misconceptions about evolutionary theory and processes

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.


CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 07:59 pm
@FBM,
Does that prove, that "life formed in a warm pond one day Daddy"

Sheesh...!
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 08:00 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Does that prove, that "life formed in a warm pond one day Daddy"

Sheesh...!


Prove that that's not a strawman fallacy.

To someone else. I've decided to put all trolls on Ignore. Good luck with your denialism. Hope you get better soon.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 08:02 pm
@FBM,
Giving up the fight, and the defense of the religion of evolution so quickly......

Oh well, I will forward this to the Pope for Vatican Council review.

Next....!
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 08:10 pm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA510_1.html

Quote:
Claim CA510.1:

Problems with evolution are evidence for creationism.
Response:

This claim assumes that creation and evolution are the only two possible models, which is quite false. Many other models, scientific and otherwise, have been proposed.

Problems even with all but one of the models do not imply that the remaining model is true. Another alternative is that another as-yet unknown explanation is correct.

If the claim is true, its converse should be true for the same reason. Are creationists prepared to accept problems with creationism (which are legion) as evidence for evolution?

Most so-called problems with evolution are not problems at all. Most of this web site is devoted to showing why.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 08:28 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
Quote:
Like Einstein's theory of relativity, that included that our universe was static and not expanding,
I get a kick out of clowns lik you that attempt to use something you know nothing about to help support specious argument in some other subject about which you know nothing bout. Einsteins theory of relativity hd nothing to do with static universe. Einstein made his concept "fit" his theory by adjusting the gravitational constant.

Quote:
It is not a theory, that science and mathematics both demonstrate the impossibility of hundreds of thousands of lines of chemical code and a helixical(SIC) matrix, forming at random in a warm pond.
Evolution hs nothing to do with Darwins metaphorical line . Youre an obstinate idiot, and you must be told so.

If you wish to blurp about ID "not being a religion based worldview'' you should be ware that the US 3rd district court has stated otherwise, and this court listend to weeks of testimony in which proponent were unconvincing. (They used many of the same hackneyed views that you've posted nd the xourt just wsnt buying it. )
In fact the court, stepping in as an objective observer, called the ID argument "breathless inanity"

The Discovery Institute has really never been the same since. They quit proselytizing in 2006 and now only stick to passing bullshit phrases on to their" paid up card carriers"
(I assume you buy their broadsides)
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2014 09:01 pm
@farmerman,
On February 4, Einstein gave a seminar about astronomy where he mentioned the work of the astronomers at the Wilson Observatory. He commended their work, but was conservative about how their observations might affect his equations, speculating that likely the universe was still static, but he might have to refigure his equations slightly.

Despite that modest answer, headlines across the country lit up, claiming that Einstein had been converted to a believer in an expanding universe. Hubble's own hometown newspaper the Springfield Daily News headlined "Youth Who Left Ozark Mountains [Hubble] to Study Stars Causes Einstein to Change His Mind."

Sheesh
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2014 01:59 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Most so-called problems with evolution are not problems at al



Best joke I have read in days!!!!l

Ah well, it is funny to see your squirm and trying to defend an udefendable theory!

LOL.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2014 07:04 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
as you see, by merely adjusting the gravitational constant he came up with an outcome that ws wrong. THAT , however, did NOT invalidate the theories of relativity.
Even Einstein called it his biggest blunder, everyone knows that.


BUT DID you know that many genies are quite literal?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2014 07:31 am
Quote:
Claim CA111:

Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
Source:

Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163
Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2014 04:22 pm
@farmerman,
You can not adjust a gravitational constant. This is like saying that someone adjusted the rate of spin of the Earth. So if someone is claiming to be adjusting parts of the Universe, which is what gravity is, they are quite kookoo........
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 01:08 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Claim CA111:

Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
Source:

Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163
Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.


You seem to be quit confused about the whole thing and logic in particularly.

The 'fact' that only so much o f the scientist support or not support creationism doesn't say a damned thing of course.

It is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" mixed with the logical fallacy of 'appeal to popularity'.

I like this one better then, then your rubbish:

http://www.quotesvalley.com/images/15/even-if-you-are-a-minority-of-one-the-truth-is-the-truth.jpg



And, you probably won't get this, but I am not saying creation is true or not true. I am simply pointing out that your logic is flawed,


Hence, your above 'argument' holds no ground whatso ever.


Btw way, by the day you sound more desperate. This might be a good sign. Wink


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 05:06 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Einstein did. In his means to arrive at a static universe, He merely adjusted the cosmological constant to a positive value .Whether you agree or not is immaterial, its what happened in history.

sorry,I stated gravitational constant , mistake I made.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 05:19 am
@farmerman,
Whatever Einstein adjusted on paper, was not a gravitational constant. Why, because a mathematical constant can not be adjusted, it's really rather simple. That said, you can adjust anything in theory of nothingness...... That can not be either proven, or disproven. Einstein proved that the universe was not expanding by his theory, Hawking also admitted that he blundered on the black hole theory http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hawking-admits-he-was-wrong-on-black-holes-1.480771

So dude, do not believe everything that you read, as the writers themselves are admitting that they have no clue.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 05:22 am
@farmerman,
The principle of parsimony. Only add a new entity when it's necessary to explain the observed phenomena. Turns out Einstein was too quick to call himself out on a blunder. Without it, we wouldn't have the Lambda-CDM model today, if I understand correctly.

Still no invisible magic man in the sky required, though. Wise to leave that one out for the time being.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2014 05:26 am
@FBM,
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Zurich_Notebook/5R.jpeg

Ok, if you understand it, explain it starting from line 1.......
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 12/12/2024 at 11:26:47