Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...unable to find real jobs with University accreditation in areas they then choose to speak "knowledgeably" in. As in: should a person with but a degree in theology and no field experience in any of the physical or biological sciences then be acknowledged as a scientist?
YSM, who frothingly and erroneously debunks ideas that our friend Darwin did not even profess, nontheless calls him a hoax, a liar and a fraud simply because he only had a degree in Theology. and despite that he was also a known self-taught, open-minded naturalist with extensive field data collection experience.
But, should YSM's charlatan unexperienced and biased pseudo-scientists be granted credibility in the fields of astronomy, mathematics and biology?
Nope. Not in any realistic evaluation. But in LaLA Land, obviously, anything goes. Debating with such folk is akin to continuing to climb on board a particularly cheesy DisneyLand ride.
Check now, dear readers, the biographies of YSM's Robert Sungenis and Malcolm Bowden. Robert J. Bennett does not show up anywhere, and hence, not being on the Internet, must therefore not exist, and certainly should not be referenced by anyone.
As usual, at least one of these dolts, Bowden, is a director of the Catholic Apologists International. There goes his credibility. But why? Because Xtian websites are always totally devoid of any scholarly credibility. They abhor peer-review or painstaking investigation of their research results by anyone, ever, preferring instead blind, unquestioning acceptance which characterizes all Xtian beliefs.
As to Kepler being wrong, anyone who states this after investigating his work for themselves should immediately seek counselling. First: from their priest, for lying without any conscience, and Second; from their medical doctor for delusional psychosis.
Remember: "Ignorance is easy; knowledge takes effort."
As a follow-up to my math calculations about the number of species required on the Ark, I was just watching a documentary, non-religious, about the potential rpoblem that a plague of locusts might brinbg upon man's agricultural establishment.
The point was made that there are over 20,000 species of locusts alone on this planet. Times the magical and implausible mere two per species for successful reproduction, even if there were vast fields of grain for them to eat after an 18 mo global food. Which, of course, there weren't.
Where, exactly, did the good Noah keep these voracious pests? Just these, not to mention the other 35M species? Huh?
(I know; it's unanswerable if you're a Christian. Tough, huh?)
And, also, someone stupidly stated that Noah's actual sons where white, black, red and yellow. How's that brand of fantasy genetics work again? And how come our human genetics, absent any Evolution, are all different from each other?
Sheesh. Ever stood around in the bottom of a septic tank? The smell here is v. similar, but at least in the septic tank, the bacteria have some sensibilities.
And, also, someone stupidly stated that Noah's actual sons where white, black, red and yellow. How's that brand of fantasy genetics work again?
Haha. And even if this were the case, humanity would've become a single, homogenized race/color a long time ago (ignoring of course, the likely fact that the human race would have gone extinct within a couple hundred years after the flood, along with every other higher form of life).
I don't "follow" Darwin! Darwin was vague and sometimes even incorrect about some details, because (as he admits in his work many times) he only had so much information to work with at the time. This is why the theory itself has evolved over time: Because new information has given us a greater understanding of how evolution works. This is how science in general works, of which you also seem to have no working knowledge.
How can you say it's nonsense when you don't even understand it?
And you know this because you fully understand it? Obviously not.
It's not "getting a story straight". You seem to think that there is a tiny handful of non-Christian scientists who sit around in a room making wild guesses out of complete randomness, with the sole purpose of discrediting the Bible. You haven't even a basic understanding of how science in general works, and you certainly don't understand evolution. I have no doubt that you know the Bible very well, yet in this matter you are well beyond your scope of knowledge, and it's extremely obvious to anyone but you.
You have focused on how the theory of evolution works. And you have stated how can I say it's nonsense when I myself don't even know how Evolution works?
It appears to me, you believe the theory of Evolution because science has enought evidence showing us it's reality. Yet the fact is, science has (NO SUCH EVIDENCE). And if you take the time to consider what some high profile scientist are saying, you would understand this.
Mark Ridley, Oxford, a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Science, June, 1981, p.831
Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N.H. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm Darwin's predictions. The fossil record does show Darwin's predictions to be wrong.
S.M. Stanley, John Hopkins, "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an (OUTRAGEOUS HYPOTHESIS).
Nature magazin's editor and paleontologist Henry Gee wrote in the Guardian newspaper: and this was in reference to a new skull discovery found in Chad.
Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the (OLD IDEA) of a missing link (IS BUNK). It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.
There is a strong preception that evolution is a theory that has been confirmed by sound science. Yet, this belief has little to do with reality.
And no, there is not a tiny group of scientist sitting around a room making wild guesses, there is a large number of scientist sitting around rooms making wild gusses. And they have to do this, because they have no real evidence to base their theories on.
And yet, you yourself have yet to reply to the vast majority of requests for clarification and justifcation that have been posted in this thread.
Kettle, there's a letter here, from a Mr. Pot....something about your color...?
Well Fred, if you look around, you might see it's about ten to one here, so there is a very good chance one might not be able to respond to every post. Yet, do you have a question that I might be able to respond to?
Well then you better never need any medicine, all created by scientists and their "theories", or a transplant or need any type of surgery. Medicine is a science. And do you know how frustrating it is to have you always accuse us of not viewing the evidence and yet it is all you do!! I have seen questions asked of you and you skip them and ignore. So for once, answer this...
Are you serious about Evolution being a fairy tale? If so you need to go read the definition again, your Bible fits the profile to a T!! Let me see, Evolution gives real possible answers while the bible says:
1.Adam and eve ( who by the way were made from dirt and ribs) talked to a snake ( which we know cant talk) what the vocal cords, EVOLVED out?
2. A global flood for 18 months where a 900 year old man and his family loaded up enough food and supplies for millions of animals ( including meat eaters and dinos, sorry no they did not eat grains, would not give them the nutrition they need) on an ark that could not possibly be built, especially when there were not nearly enough wood to build it in the dessert. Then landed and somehow repopulated the Earth with billions of people and plants of millions if not billions of different species in a very short time, oh not to mention the different languages, cultures and colors of the people.
3.That a man was murdered ( who claimed to be the son of God), stuck on a cross only to come back to walk the earth, with absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any of this happening oh and NO EVIDENCE or records of ANY OF it in any other civilization at the time.
Yea, Evolution is a real fairy tale. RRiiiiiiggghhhhtttt. This is what we are suppose to believe instead of science which has proven itself to be correct many many times? Yet the Bible IS THE ONLY evidence you have of anything?
Please do not put real science and Evolution in the same camp. A Fairy Tale is a story that is base on no evidence. That is pretty much the story of Evolution.
Derek Ager, U. at Swansea, Wales, "It must be siginificant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been "DEBUNKED." Similarly, my own experienced of more than twenty years lookiing for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132
You have focused on how the theory of evolution works. And you have stated how can I say it's nonsense when I myself don't even know how Evolution works?
It appears to me, you believe the theory of Evolution because science has enought evidence showing us it's reality. Yet the fact is, science has (NO SUCH EVIDENCE). And if you take the time to consider what some high profile scientist are saying, you would understand this.
Mark Ridley, Oxford, a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Science, June, 1981, p.831
Here we go quote mining again huh? Very dishonest of you once again Tom.
Here is the entire quote in proper context...`In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of
evolution as opposed to special creation. This does not mean that
the theory of evolution is unproven.
`So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have
traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the
"fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The
three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from
biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.'
Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N.H. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm Darwin's predictions. The fossil record does show Darwin's predictions to be wrong.
What is left out of that quote ..."We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism." "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record."
S.M. Stanley, John Hopkins, "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an (OUTRAGEOUS HYPOTHESIS).
Unfortunately for creationists there are hundreds of thousands of fossils that do support evolution, as does S. M. Stanley.
Nature magazin's editor and paleontologist Henry Gee wrote in the Guardian newspaper: and this was in reference to a new skull discovery found in Chad.
Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the (OLD IDEA) of a missing link (IS BUNK). It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.
So what? "Missing link" is a media term. Every fossil found is a link, and so is every creature alive today.
There is a strong preception that evolution is a theory that has been confirmed by sound science. Yet, this belief has little to do with reality.
And no, there is not a tiny group of scientist sitting around a room making wild guesses, there is a large number of scientist sitting around rooms making wild gusses. And they have to do this, because they have no real evidence to base their theories on.
just another in your long series of dishonest posts, I'm afraid....
They have so few cards to play. You are taking all their toys away!! Big meanie!!!
Of course the biggest card we can play, is the fact that Evolution has no real evidence to support it's theory. And that statement can be supported by numerous other statements made by high profile believers in Evolution.
Of course the biggest card we can play, is the fact that Evolution has no real evidence to support it's theory. And that statement can be supported by numerous other statements made by high profile believers in Evolution.
Only if you use the quoted mined stuff from the creationist sites you are so fond of doing.. Do they hire people to sit and read all the science papers looking for stuff they can take out of context?...That job would suit you just fine....No honesty required.
just another in your long series of dishonest posts, I'm afraid....
Missing link a media term? sanspeur, you know better than that. The editor of Nature Magazine Henery Gee stated that was a term used by believers in evolution. Now are you going to refute one of your main people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This Just In!!
Darwin was vague and sometimes even incorrect about some details, because (as he admits in his work many times) he only had so much information to work with at the time. This is why the theory itself has evolved over time: Because new information has given us a greater understanding of how evolution works. This is how science in general works, of which you also seem to have no working knowledge.
