15 PHD level scientists say evolution is a bunch of bullshit

@DNA Thumbs drive,

adjusting the cosmological constant to become a positive value was exactly what Einstein did and was later shown to be wrong and he admitted to it.

So you should be more open to how we modify our worlviews based on evidence or history.

0 Replies

@FBM,

We have a member here who knew Arno and Penzias

3 Replies

Why rigid, faith-based religions will most likely die out as scientific knowledge advances in the face of the ever-adaptable scientific approach:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10440705_588693487928352_8569215009757208646_n.jpg

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

We have a member here who knew Arno and Penzias

The best I got is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-yong, who teaches at the same university I do. I've probably bumped into him at the faculty cafeteria without realizing it.

1 Reply

@FBM,

And he has proved abiogenesis, and this is described in the null and void link that was posted.

Sheesh

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

why do you insist that abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory when all of science says otherwise?? Is it some thing that you must proselytize and Evangelize around the web?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

This is about as new as it gets, and surprise, surprise, no god required: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41619/title/Evolution-in-Oil-Droplets/

Quote:

Evolution in Oil Droplets
For the first time ever, researchers have mimicked biological evolution using chemicals instead of living organisms.

By Bob Grant | December 9, 2014
...
The researchers used a robot based on a simple 3-D printing platform that created oil droplets at random from combinations of four different chemicals—1-octanol, diethyl phthalate, 1-pentanol, and either octanoic acid or dodecane. Cronin and his team analyzed the behavior of 225 different droplet types, each of which behaved slightly differently in water. Using the stability of the droplets as a proxy for fitness, the researchers selected the most-fit drops and used their chemical recipes to make subsequent generations of drops. After 21 rounds of selection, the scientists showed that the droplets had “evolved” to become more stable.

“This initial phase of research has shown that the system we’ve designed is capable of facilitating an evolutionary process, so we could in the future create models to perform specific tasks, such as splitting, then seeking out other droplets and fusing with them,” Cronin said in a statement. “We’re also keen to explore in future experiments how the emergence of unexpected features, functions and behaviors might be selected for.”

1 Reply

@FBM,

yeh, waaay before we had saber toothed cats, we hadda have a cell wall.

1 Reply

The religious nut bags get worked up over abiogenesis because they want to insert their god into the process.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

I've been thinking about this sort of thing on a much smaller scale:

The right frequency, sustained over a long enough time. Something to think about.

0 Replies

On December 8, 2104 BCE, Noah’s Ark came to rest on the top of Mount Ararat - I hope, you'll all attended some jubilee party!

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

The religious nut bags get worked up over abiogenesis because they want to insert their god into the process.

assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. HHmmm starts to look like evolution itself Whoaa!!!

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Why rigid, faith-based religions will most likely die out as scientific knowledge advances in the face of the ever-adaptable scientific approach:

Whoa this girl IS funny!!!! ever adaptable scientific approach??????
Have you even even BEEN in an academic institute?????

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The religious nut bags get worked up over abiogenesis because they want to insert their god into the process.

I apologize for repeatedly re-introducing abiogenesis into a thread about evolution. Embarrassed

But they started it. Wink

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

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

LOL, I liked this one! Good one! Thanks!

I see a lot of math in there.

About math. Most people are unaware that 'science', well, better put "scientism'
uses math to obscure and hide behind. Mathematics is in now way the right tool. Far too insecure and idiotic.

You see, the 'physical' world is very easy to understand without the more then ridiculous "Higer Mathematics"

But you se, the people whoa are calling the shots don't want you to understand the physical world.

So, they throw a lot of goobledegok, rubbish, shite and what have you at us, and a lot of people take that **** seriously!

If it wasn't so sad to see it would be hilarious,

It is like throwing **** at a dog , and then the dog eats it, assuming it is nutricious!

Man o man!!

0 Replies

@FBM,

That's cool . . . that joker Thumby is attempting that at one remove. The abiogenesis argument runs: "Life is too complex to have formed itself, so there must be a creator." Thumby here is arguing that biota cannot replicate without DNA (not true), and that DNA is too complex to have assembled itself, so there must be a creator.

Same idiocy, different spiel . . .

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Therre was an "anomaly" seen on Mt Ararat in the 1950's and was later seen from space as a sat photo.
All the Ark believers were all fired up and expeditions were plned and begun. It turned out that this anomaly was a rock feature called a "Whaleback" . All the ICR fellas shut up and went back to looking under the ice

1 Reply

@farmerman,

They missed a chance to it claim as proof of Jonah's merry larks. (Or was that Pinocchio?)

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That's cool . . . that joker Thumby is attempting that at one remove. The abiogenesis argument runs: "Life is too complex to have formed itself, so there must be a creator." Thumby here is arguing that biota cannot replicate without DNA (not true), and that DNA is too complex to have assembled itself, so there must be a creator.

Same idiocy, different spiel . . .

Here's the false dilemma that Thumby, et al, depend on: "The current scientific model has problems, therefore our specific Abrahamic god. As described and interpreted by only our sect at this time, of course."

As if there were only two possibilities. There are shitloads of other possibilities, many of which have yet to be formulated. You could also include ancient Greek, Roman, Japanese, Botswanian, whatever, gods to the fray if you were inclined to the mystical, mysterious answer. Rolling Eyes

The ongoing and openly shared current problems in science in no way indicates the mystical solution. The fallacy is blatant and would even be comical, if there weren't parents denying their children medical help (including vaccinations and blood transfusions) in favor of prayer. Y'know, until the kids die. I'm not saying they're deliberately killing their kids; I'm just saying that this level of ignorance should be eradicated from 21st century civilization.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Here's the false dilemma that Thumby, et al, depend on: "The current scientific model has problems, therefore our specific Abrahamic god. As described and interpreted by only our sect at this time, of course."

Well, for starters, I NEVER WROTE SOMETHING LIKE THAT?!

So by now you are a PUBLIC LIAR!

If there is no evidence then the theory is wrong! It is not only wrong, it is
enormously wrong!

0 Replies

15 PHD level scientists say evolution is a bunch of bullshit

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know