1
   

International Scientific Conference Deems Evolution A "Hoax"

 
 
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 10:55 am
https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/29183-international-scientific-conference-deems-evolution-a-hoax

The academic deadwood still defending evolutionism (e.g. Formerman here) still site taxonomic charts as evidence of evolution.

There is a better explanation for taxonomic charts and the way that families of living creatures appear to be able to be described in what look like tree diagrams. Taxonomic charts are evidence of object-oriented design. In other words, it looks as if God has used the selfsame methodology which you would call best practices in software engineering. The analogy would be between our living world and a pure object language such as Smalltalk or Eiffel which begins with a base object for the entire programming system.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,096 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 01:46 pm
@gungasnake,
Ha! If that's a "Scientific Conference", then I'm a 400lb ballerina.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 03:39 pm
@gungasnake,
never knew the John Birch Society was against biologicl science. I always thought they were more associated with the nuclear power advocates. I guess the need to pick nd choose and deny only parts of atomic theory, namely radioisotopic dating but not disintegrations per second
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 03:40 pm
@rosborne979,
we always look to welcoming cities to hold geology conferences. Ankara seems a bit out of the mainstream.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2018 04:03 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
then I'm a 400lb ballerina.


The clumsy manner in which you dance around here seems to make that a distinct possibility, ros.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2018 04:19 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
never new the John Birch Society
. Spoken like a true bigot. Concentrate on the world view of the group of scientists and the publication rather than the facts.

I dont think I know an atheist who isnt a bigot. I cant say that about the John Birch Society.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2018 09:07 am
@brianjakub,
the paper is a function of the Birchers, or didnt you know??

If I said that "Gee I never knew the KKK was made up of Creationists" would you still call me a bigot?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2018 09:10 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Concentrate on the world view of the group of scientists
I did, and to my un surprise I saw that they would introduce your "Experts" first based upon their religious views first. and not their scientific expertise.
Sounds a bit like the Trump Whitehouse."**** the law and th Constitution" we must first protect the President!!"
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2018 09:43 am
@farmerman,
Here you are, farmerman, taking part in a gungasnake thread about "science" but you can't seem to discuss science that matters, science that is real.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jul, 2019 07:13 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
If I said that "Gee I never knew the KKK was made up of Creationists" would you still call me a bigot?


But the KKK has beliefs similar Nazism and they based the idea that they were the master race on Darwinism. A bigot is someone who judges an argument according to the person who is delivering the argument rather than the validity of the argument.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jul, 2019 07:20 am
@farmerman,
My quote was
Quote:
. Spoken like a true bigot. Concentrate on the world view of the group of scientists and the publication rather than the facts.


I meant Spoken like a true bigot who concentrates on the world view of the group of scientists and the publication rather than the facts.

Quote:
I did, and to my un surprise I saw that they would introduce your "Experts" first based upon their religious views first. and not their scientific expertise.
Sounds a bit like the Trump Whitehouse."**** the law and th Constitution" we must first protect the President!!"
So, the introduction describing the religious views of the person disqualifies their argument? Why not just discuss where their argument is flawed?

I haven't seen Trump do anything unconstitutional yet, could you give an example?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » International Scientific Conference Deems Evolution A "Hoax"
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/19/2019 at 02:51:02