Dear Aimoo User:

We added a function of Aimoo Ticket. If you met errors in Aimoo, you can add ticket to us. we will confirm it and process it first.
Free Speech
FSA Ticket | Today | Join | Member | Search | Help | Sign In | |
FSA > Theology and Spirtuality > This life and the after life Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Tomlapaz
  • From:USA

Date Posted:01-04-2018 06:27:08

A descendant of David was born in Bethlehem (as foretold by the Jewish prophet Micah), died for the sins of his people and raised from the dead (as foretold by the Jewish prophet Isaiah and Jewish King David), 2000 years ago (in the time as foretold by the Jewish prophet Daniel). And because of this descendant of David, men and women everywhere have the means of finding peace with the Creator of the heavens and the earth. The forgiveness of sins.

Jesus: For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words? Psalm 37:21 The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives.
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #121
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 09:22:52

 TRANSLATION

" I NOW change from saying you can't find scientists who say things contradictory to evolution, to NOW saying I can find more thatn you....nyahh-Ozskdander"

___

Translation:  "I, Wale, am lying again."

Dear imbecile...I have always said you can find dead scientists or two or three religious mechanical engineers who disagree.  It is SCIENCE that disagrees with them. All of science in the published literature and experimental journals disagree with them.

Lie much?  Why yes, yes you do.

Oh lookie...another dead scientist posted by Wale who has been disproven.  lololol

Michael Denton has been disproven so many times it is laughable.

You can always march out the usual 2-3 idiots who are unpublished in ANY peer reviewed research because they are so disproven.  Tomas has his favorite 2 or 3 civil engineers and mechanical engineers who have no idea what they are talking about...much like yourself.

Science disagrees with them.  Science has proven evolution to be a fact.

You can say that the intuitive feeling that this could happen just goes against your belief...which is all these scientists are saying.....but you, and the dead scientists you have posted, cannot refute the science I have posted of actual observations that prove it is a fact.

Have you even read any of it? Of course you haven't.



"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #122
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 09:25:36

 The chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein (1981b, 294:105).

___


Dumbest thing ever written.

This is not how evolution works.  The wind didn't blow our molecules together in any sense of the idiotic imagination.

Perhaps you should try to first understand what evolution is before you argue about something it is not.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html

Claim CB940:

Complex structures could not have arisen by chance.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.

Response:

  1. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

    Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature.

  2. The principles by which evolution works, including random variation and recombination and natural selection, have proven successful and useful for designing new drugs (Coghlan 1998), for designing better enzymes for detergents (Pollack 2000), and, as genetic algorithms, for many other applications.

References:

  1. Coghlan, Andy, 1998. A sexual revolution. New Scientist 160 (21 Nov.): 4. See also: Maxygen, 1998. When genes "breed" in the lab, a surprising number of their offspring are supergenes. (Press release, 18 Nov. 1998) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-11/NS-WGIT-181198.php
  2. Davidson, Clive, 1997. Creatures from primordial silicon. New Scientist 156 (15 Nov.): 30-34. http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/primordial.jsp
  3. Lipson, Hod and Jordan B. Pollack, 2000. Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406: 974-978.
  4. Pollack, Andrew, 2000. Selling evolution in ways Darwin never imagined. New York Times, 28 Oct. 2000, business section. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/28/business/28EVOL.html
  5. Thompson, Adrian, 1996. An evolved circuit, intrinsic in silicon, entwined with physics. http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ices96/paper.html


Keep trying wale.


PS. Evolution is a fact. These guys can say all they want that it is improbable, but we have witnessed it firsthand as in the examples I posted and you ignored.




"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #123
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 09:28:42

Reply to skwanderer

 TRANSLATION

" I NOW change from saying you can't find scientists who say things contradictory to evolution, to NOW saying I can find more thatn you....nyahh-Ozskdander"

___

Translation:  "I, Wale, am lying again."

Dear imbecile...I have always said you can find dead scientists or two or three religious mechanical engineers who disagree.  It is SCIENCE that disagrees with them. All of science in the published literature and experimental journals disagree with them.

Lie much?  Why yes, yes you do.

Oh lookie...another dead scientist posted by Wale who has been disproven.  lololol

Michael Denton has been disproven so many times it is laughable.

You can always march out the usual 2-3 idiots who are unpublished in ANY peer reviewed research because they are so disproven.  Tomas has his favorite 2 or 3 civil engineers and mechanical engineers who have no idea what they are talking about...much like yourself.

Science disagrees with them.  Science has proven evolution to be a fact.

You can say that the intuitive feeling that this could happen just goes against your belief...which is all these scientists are saying.....but you, and the dead scientists you have posted, cannot refute the science I have posted of actual observations that prove it is a fact.

Have you even read any of it? Of course you haven't.



MORE THAN A FEW


Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #124
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 09:50:15

 There are ten million scientists on earth.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-scientists-exist-worldwide

154 biologists in your poll, lets assume all 514, none of which have published a single study in a peer reviewed journal on the topic, are actually relevant.

That is....wait for it......0.0054% of scientists, all of which are unpublished in the field........HAVE EXPRESSED DOUBTS


LOL It doesn't get more factual than that.  Plus, random mutation is not the only effect.  This was signed before we even knew about epigenetic effects....there are many other sources of change, crossing over, polyploidy and much more.

Here are some more actual observations of the fact of evolution where science has DEMONSTRATED that mutation indeed does cause speciation and evolution for an imbecile like you to ignore.

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #125
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 09:52:44

 lol  Turns out most of those guys are evangelicals and don't even work in science.  double lol

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=048034BD3E80046BEDBCEC1B5DA2482F&gwt=pay


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #126
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 09:57:44


Some are but that doesn't necessarily disqualify them. here are some others:

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

  <!-- #EndEditable --> 


skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #127
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 09:59:04

 This is how religious idiots like yourself argue science Wale.....because you cant argue science...so you find some overwhelmingly small minority of evangelicals who call themselves scientists and say...."but this guy thinks it is questionable".

There are lot of things to question in the Theory, the body of knowledge about how the fact of evolution operations....but there is no question it is a fact.  We have observed it directly.

Why have you never addressed the fact we have observed it to happen directly?   This is proven. 

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #128
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:17-04-2018 10:01:40

 0.005% of "scientists"...all of which are evangelical.

I could find a higher percentage who thing the world is flat. 

Still laughing

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #129
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 12:51:59

Reply to skwanderer

 0.005% of "scientists"...all of which are evangelical.

I could find a higher percentage who thing the world is flat. 

Still laughing


You just prove my point. First you say " no scientists deny evolution..". Then I show you a number of scientists do AND you find some sort of rationalization to  argue that. The fact that we can a find a good number means there are MORE in the world who do NOT abide by evolution.

SCIENCE is not determined by majority vote. So you can continue to mock BUT we KNOW that you STILL hold to preconceived ideas before you even begin. Demonstrated in these postings of yours in the face of what you asked for.


skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #130
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 03:10:22

 No scientists deny evolution.  Even if you call these few signators “scientists”, the statement said they have doubts, are skeptical but not denial. Good Christ you are stupid Wale.  You know what else 0.0005% of “scientists” believe? They were abducted by aliens or were Bigfoot’s love slave.  They must be correct as well right? 
I see you are still unable to present a single scientific paper that refutes the evidence I presented, unable to discuss any of the science yourself, and still dumber than a fucking rock.  

When do you plan to enter this debate wale?  I presented factual evidence, you presented 0.005 % of scientists who are skeptical, have produced no peer reviewed publish papers to support their skepticism, and are akin to believing alien abduction or a flat earth.    
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #131
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 03:16:37

 You are right science is not determined by majority vote.  It is determined by factual data.  Those data are published in peer reviewed scientific publications.  Actual observations of the fact of evolution.   I have factual data. You have none...along with your 0.005% of flat earth mechanical engineers who are evangelicals first...and have not published a single study.  

It’s not even a question anymore Wale.  You will never see a new study that says new evidence for evolution.  That question is settled.   Only the details remain open for for discussion.  

There is So much data you willfully ignore.  You have ignored direct observation of evolution I presented.  Do you wish to ignore genetics next ?   Fucking idiot 
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #132
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 12:09:03

Reply to skwanderer

 You are right science is not determined by majority vote.  It is determined by factual data.  Those data are published in peer reviewed scientific publications.  Actual observations of the fact of evolution.   I have factual data. You have none...along with your 0.005% of flat earth mechanical engineers who are evangelicals first...and have not published a single study.  

It’s not even a question anymore Wale.  You will never see a new study that says new evidence for evolution.  That question is settled.   Only the details remain open for for discussion.  

There is So much data you willfully ignore.  You have ignored direct observation of evolution I presented.  Do you wish to ignore genetics next ?   Fucking idiot 


hey skdoodle,

First you say I present NO information. So I present to you INFORMATION by EXPERTS and THAT is not enough for you as you poo poo that. What YOU really want is ONLY information that makes YOUR slanted take come out as you wish. You've been exposed as desiring the outcome you desire and that REALLY is at the bottom of all this. no matter what is presented and no matter from what sources, YOU will always say " YEAH, but", until you have it come out to the answer YOU want.

No matter how much you yammer about , THIS is what it boils down to. Using the epithets kind of loses the argument for you. Of course then you have the fall back of " I the GREAT and POWERFUL OZskdoodle pronounce thus...".

I suggest you seek therapy for your condition.

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #133
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 12:20:53

Reply to skwanderer

 No scientists deny evolution.  Even if you call these few signators “scientists”, the statement said they have doubts, are skeptical but not denial. Good Christ you are stupid Wale.  You know what else 0.0005% of “scientists” believe? They were abducted by aliens or were Bigfoot’s love slave.  They must be correct as well right? 
I see you are still unable to present a single scientific paper that refutes the evidence I presented, unable to discuss any of the science yourself, and still dumber than a fucking rock.  

When do you plan to enter this debate wale?  I presented factual evidence, you presented 0.005 % of scientists who are skeptical, have produced no peer reviewed publish papers to support their skepticism, and are akin to believing alien abduction or a flat earth.    


MANY do, more than the ones we've cited. We haven't time to question the entirety of existing scientists around the world just because it doesn't satisfy your fragile construct.

"...Nonetheless, many find it rhetorically persuasive to learn about atheists and agnostics who challenge materialistic accounts of origins. These nonreligious scientists and scholars who doubt modern Darwinian theory include former U.S. National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis, medical professor Raymond Tallis, Rutgers cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, New York University philosopher and legal scholar Thomas Nagel, and Princeton-trained mathematician David Berlinski—all of whom have publicly challenged neo-Darwinism and/or sympathized with ID.

Significantly, many of these scholars have faced harsh reactions from fellow nonbelievers. Margulis observes that those who attack Darwin become “persona non grata,” and Fodor has faced pressure to suppress his doubts “in public.” This demonstrates academic intolerance toward Darwin-skeptics, and leads one to wonder how many other atheists would challenge Darwinism if they had the academic freedom to do so..."

"...Tallis understands natural selection to be a “blind watchmaker,” that cannot select for future goals. But he acknowledges what few Darwinians will admit—that blind selection cannot explain the goal-directed nature of human consciousness: “Darwinism, therefore, leaves something unaccounted for: the emergence of people like you and me who are indubitably sighted watchmakers….Isn’t there a problem in explaining how the blind forces of physics brought about (cognitively) sighted humans who are able to see, and identify, and comment on, the ‘blind’ forces of physics…?”7

Tallis recognizes “the failure to explain any form of consciousness, never mind human consciousness, in evolutionary terms.”8 But he is hardly the only atheist who questions Darwinian explanations...."

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #134
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 01:44:02

hey skdoodle,

A sure indication that what follows is worthless, rambling, tripe.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "[i]If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn.,[/i]" -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #135
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 03:37:13

 MANY do, more than the ones we've cited.

First you say I present NO information.

___

No they don't deny it.  Read their fucking statement you posted idiot.  It says they are skeptical.  That is not denial.

Like I said, 0.005% of scientists think they were abducted by aliens and anal probed as well.

There is not one published scientific paper on earth that provides evolution is not real.

You have presented NO information.  That remains true.  Saying this guy Bob agrees with me and he is a scientist (mechanical engineer) is NOT information.

Post some published scientific studies that say it isn't real, then we can have a discussion.

The blind watchmaker nonsense is nonsense.  It starts with a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation that evolution is random.  It is not, as I have already explained and you have ignored.

Fucking moron.

I have posted this already explaining how the blind watchmaker is nonsense. You will have to ignore it again.

Claim CB940:

Complex structures could not have arisen by chance.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.

Response:

  1. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

    Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature.

  2. The principles by which evolution works, including random variation and recombination and natural selection, have proven successful and useful for designing new drugs (Coghlan 1998), for designing better enzymes for detergents (Pollack 2000), and, as genetic algorithms, for many other applications.

References:

  1. Coghlan, Andy, 1998. A sexual revolution. New Scientist 160 (21 Nov.): 4. See also: Maxygen, 1998. When genes "breed" in the lab, a surprising number of their offspring are supergenes. (Press release, 18 Nov. 1998) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-11/NS-WGIT-181198.php
  2. Davidson, Clive, 1997. Creatures from primordial silicon. New Scientist 156 (15 Nov.): 30-34. http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/primordial.jsp
  3. Lipson, Hod and Jordan B. Pollack, 2000. Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406: 974-978.
  4. Pollack, Andrew, 2000. Selling evolution in ways Darwin never imagined. New York Times, 28 Oct. 2000, business section. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/28/business/28EVOL.html
  5. Thompson, Adrian, 1996. An evolved circuit, intrinsic in silicon, entwined with physics. http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ices96/paper.html

You can trot out whatever idiots like yourself who say "no it isn't" all you want, but you cant post a single piece of evidence that says everything I have posted regarding the facts of the actual observations of evolution are not real.




"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #136
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 03:40:35

 Significantly, many of these scholars....blah blah blah

__

scholars??


If they were scholars, wouldn't they have published scientific research on the subject?

Please present their scientific papers that say what you claim they say. 

Lets discuss them.

lol



"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #137
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 03:45:10

Reply to skwanderer

 MANY do, more than the ones we've cited.

First you say I present NO information.

___

No they don't deny it.  Read their fucking statement you posted idiot.  It says they are skeptical.  That is not denial.

Like I said, 0.005% of scientists think they were abducted by aliens and anal probed as well.

There is not one published scientific paper on earth that provides evolution is not real.

You have presented NO information.  That remains true.  Saying this guy Bob agrees with me and he is a scientist (mechanical engineer) is NOT information.

Post some published scientific studies that say it isn't real, then we can have a discussion.

The blind watchmaker nonsense is nonsense.  It starts with a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation that evolution is random.  It is not, as I have already explained and you have ignored.

Fucking moron.

I have posted this already explaining how the blind watchmaker is nonsense. You will have to ignore it again.

Claim CB940:

Complex structures could not have arisen by chance.

Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.

Response:

  1. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

    Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature.

  2. The principles by which evolution works, including random variation and recombination and natural selection, have proven successful and useful for designing new drugs (Coghlan 1998), for designing better enzymes for detergents (Pollack 2000), and, as genetic algorithms, for many other applications.

References:

  1. Coghlan, Andy, 1998. A sexual revolution. New Scientist 160 (21 Nov.): 4. See also: Maxygen, 1998. When genes "breed" in the lab, a surprising number of their offspring are supergenes. (Press release, 18 Nov. 1998) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-11/NS-WGIT-181198.php
  2. Davidson, Clive, 1997. Creatures from primordial silicon. New Scientist 156 (15 Nov.): 30-34. http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/primordial.jsp
  3. Lipson, Hod and Jordan B. Pollack, 2000. Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406: 974-978.
  4. Pollack, Andrew, 2000. Selling evolution in ways Darwin never imagined. New York Times, 28 Oct. 2000, business section. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/28/business/28EVOL.html
  5. Thompson, Adrian, 1996. An evolved circuit, intrinsic in silicon, entwined with physics. http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ices96/paper.html

You can trot out whatever idiots like yourself who say "no it isn't" all you want, but you cant post a single piece of evidence that says everything I have posted regarding the facts of the actual observations of evolution are not real.





MORE EPITHETS FROM skdoodle

TRANSLATION

" I cannot accept that everyone doesn't just swallow my maladjusted views whole AND any scientist, no matter how accredited, who contradicts ME, I will continue label as an idiot- skdoodle"


LYNN MARGULIS

A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and once the wife of Carl Sagan, biologist Lynn Margulis (1938–2011) is not the first person one might expect to critique neo- Darwinian theory vocally. But that’s exactly what she did. In an interview shortly before her death, Margulis explained, “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” Echoing the arguments of many ID proponents, Margulis maintains that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”9 In a 2003 book co-authored with Dorion Sagan (the son of Carl), she elaborates:

This Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement….Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.10


skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #138
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 04:18:03

 First you say I present NO information. So I present to you INFORMATION by EXPERTS

___ 

You presented no information by experts.  Present their studies.

Ready go. 

All you did is quote mine from creationist idiots.

Margulis is a self described evolutionist.....and fully accepts evolution.  All she says is that random mutation is not everything....and it is not. 

How embarrassing for you.   You provide a scholar who you think denies evolution, and is in fact a proponent.

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-interview-lynn-margulis-not-controversial-right

Margulis, a self-described “evolutionist,” makes a convincing case that there are really just two groups, bacteria and everything else.

That distinction led to her career-making insight. In a 1967 paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Margulis suggested that mitochondria and plastids—vital structures within animal and plant cells—evolved from bacteria hundreds of million of years ago, after bacterial cells started to collect in interactive communities and live symbiotically with one another. The resulting mergers yielded the compound cells known as eukaryotes, which in turn gave rise to all the rest—the protoctists, fungi, plants, and animals, including humans. The notion that we are all the children of bacteria seemed outlandish at the time, but it is now widely supported and accepted. “The evolution of the eukaryotic cells was the single most important event in the history of the organic world,” said Ernst Mayr, the leading evolutionary biologist of the last century. “Margulis’s contribution to our understanding the symbiotic factors was of enormous importance.”


She is an evolutionist.  She believes symbiosis led to evolution more than random mutation...it is both but mostly mutation and natural selection.


You are, as always, a fucking idiot.



NEXT


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #139
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 04:20:57

  I cannot accept that everyone doesn't just swallow my maladjusted views whole AND any scientist, no matter how accredited, who contradicts ME, I will continue label as an idiot- skdoodle"

__


Margulis accepts my view and does not contradict science at all. You were just misled by idiot creationist quote miners. All creationists can do since they have no studies or evidence to support their view, is take quotes out of context from people they call "scholars"   Got any other scholars who you think deny evolution?

You are trying to make this about ME.  well..because you are fucking moron without an argument or a clue.  It is about science, which you cannot discuss.

Still waiting for you to discuss the research of the "scholars" who deny evolution.

That you are not embarrassed and keep coming back to get your ass kicked repeatedly is a sure sign of your stupidity.


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #140
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 05:38:11

 Walnut brain is feverishly searching the internet for another "scholar" who says evolution isn't real....only to find it is an inaccurate meaningless quote.

Don't bother searching for the scientific studies that alleged evolution isn't real Wale.....there aren't any.



"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #141
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 06:24:45

Reply to skwanderer

  I cannot accept that everyone doesn't just swallow my maladjusted views whole AND any scientist, no matter how accredited, who contradicts ME, I will continue label as an idiot- skdoodle"

__


Margulis accepts my view and does not contradict science at all. You were just misled by idiot creationist quote miners. All creationists can do since they have no studies or evidence to support their view, is take quotes out of context from people they call "scholars"   Got any other scholars who you think deny evolution?

You are trying to make this about ME.  well..because you are fucking moron without an argument or a clue.  It is about science, which you cannot discuss.

Still waiting for you to discuss the research of the "scholars" who deny evolution.

That you are not embarrassed and keep coming back to get your ass kicked repeatedly is a sure sign of your stupidity.


only in your DEMENTED mind.

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #142
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 06:31:35

Reply to skwanderer

 Walnut brain is feverishly searching the internet for another "scholar" who says evolution isn't real....only to find it is an inaccurate meaningless quote.

Don't bother searching for the scientific studies that alleged evolution isn't real Wale.....there aren't any.




YOU said flatly NO scientist denies evolution well you've been presented with some who, at the very least ,have problems with aspects of it.

Jerry Fodor is a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Rutgers University. In his 2010 book, What Darwin Got Wrong, coauthored with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, the two profess being “outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists,” but nonetheless contend “there is something wrong—quite possibly fatally wrong—with the theory of natural selection.” Like Margulis, they face pushback from peers who feel they are betraying science: “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute."  They observe that in the ivory tower, “neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” “literally goes unquestioned,” and contrary views are “ipso facto rejected.” Nonetheless, Fodor isn’t afraid to challenge the consensus. Natural selection “cannot be the mechanism that generates the historical taxonomy of species,” he writes, for “the theory of natural selection is internally flawed…there’s a crack in the foundations.”16

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #143
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 06:42:06

 only in your DEMENTED mind.

___

You have not found a single scientist who denies it.

I quoted Marguilus....she accepts evolution completely.  This is where you get the fact and theory mixed up.  She accepts it is a fact, but has questions about the mechanisms of how it works. Its right in front of your face.  She is an EVOLUTIONIST.  lolololol

If she were alive you could tell her she is demented.

So you got that completely wrong and doubled down on your stupidity with Jerry Fodor...who also believes evolution to be a fact.

Firstly , he is a philosopher.  Which branch of science is philosophy again?

Fodor also fully believes in evolution, but has a philosophical term with survival of the fittest....because it isn't really the fittest, it is merely those who survive.

Fodor merely postulated (without evidence) that the theory e=overestimates the contribution of environment to phenotype.  He never argued evolution is not a fact....and accepted evolution as fact.

You are, as always, a feckless idiot who cant get a single thing correct.



NEXT




"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #144
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 06:44:22

 Wale:  The thing you are not understanding is that none of your examples thus far are questing the fact of evolution.  They agree with evolution.  They are questioning the degree to which postulated mechanisms drive evolution. 

You should probably try to understand what the science of evolution says before arguing against it.

As always. I ask you to post the scientific research from anyone who denies the existence of the fact of evolution.

You have thus far failed to provide a single example.

And yes....you are feckless idiot.


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #145
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 06:47:15

Reply to skwanderer

 Wale:  The thing you are not understanding is that none of your examples thus far are questing the fact of evolution.  They agree with evolution.  They are questioning the degree to which postulated mechanisms drive evolution. 

You should probably try to understand what the science of evolution says before arguing against it.

As always. I ask you to post the scientific research from anyone who denies the existence of the fact of evolution.

You have thus far failed to provide a single example.

And yes....you are feckless idiot.



Hey skdoodle, these posting have stated GAPS in the THEORY and have not stated evolution as fact AND they are much more credentialed than yourself, although I know you'll put on the GREAT OZskdoodle hat to say they are somehow not to your pronouncements,


"....Tallis recognizes “the failure to explain any form of consciousness, never mind human consciousness, in evolutionary terms.”8 But he is hardly the only atheist who questions Darwinian explanations.

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #146
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 06:53:28

Sigh.  I am trying to explain this to a human turnip.

Of course there are gaps in the theory idiot.  The theory is the body of knowledge of everything about evolution and how it works.  There are gaps in all of our knowledge on evolution.

But evolution is a fact.

Here is the analogy.  Gravity is a fact and a theory.  The fact of gravity is that if you jump off a bridge (something you should seriously consider) you will fall.  The theory of gravity is the body of knowledge of how it works, which we don't yet fully understand.

The fact of evolution is that is happens.  We witness it. 

NONE of the examples you have provided disagree with the fact.  They have issues with some of the mechanisms and how they work.

Marguilis said evolution is fact.  "She said, quote, "we evolved from bacteria hundreds of million of years ago"...what she disagrees with is exactly how.  Fodor agrees evolution is real...just read his fucking book idiot.


You have yet to provide a single "scholar" who disagree with the fact.

When you do, if you do, lets discuss their research, shall we?

As always, you are a feckless fucking imbecile.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #147
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 07:00:04

Reply to skwanderer

Sigh.  I am trying to explain this to a human turnip.

Of course there are gaps in the theory idiot.  The theory is the body of knowledge of everything about evolution and how it works.  There are gaps in all of our knowledge on evolution.

But evolution is a fact.

Here is the analogy.  Gravity is a fact and a theory.  The fact of gravity is that if you jump off a bridge (something you should seriously consider) you will fall.  The theory of gravity is the body of knowledge of how it works, which we don't yet fully understand.

The fact of evolution is that is happens.  We witness it. 

NONE of the examples you have provided disagree with the fact.  They have issues with some of the mechanisms and how they work.

Marguilis said evolution is fact.  "She said, quote, "we evolved from bacteria hundreds of million of years ago"...what she disagrees with is exactly how.  Fodor agrees evolution is real...just read his fucking book idiot.


You have yet to provide a single "scholar" who disagree with the fact.

When you do, if you do, lets discuss their research, shall we?

As always, you are a feckless fucking imbecile.


TRANSLATION

" Evolution has gaps but is solid fact-OZskdoodle"

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #148
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 07:10:42

 Omfg.  You are literally the dumbest person I have ever met     In this forum that is saying something.   Evolution is a fact like gravity.  Exactly how everything happened over 3.5 billion years is not completely known, just like we don’t know how exactly gravity happens. 

For the tenth time. The theory is the body of knowledge about the fact of evolution. We recently learned about epigenetics and how it can influence evolution.  We will likely learn more. But we will never learn evolution is not a fact.  It is a fact.
   
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #149
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 07:17:14

 You are on Page 5 here wale.   Now might be a good time for you to finally present your first piece of evidence that evolution is not a fact.  
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #150
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 09:38:57

Reply to skwanderer

 Omfg.  You are literally the dumbest person I have ever met     In this forum that is saying something.   Evolution is a fact like gravity.  Exactly how everything happened over 3.5 billion years is not completely known, just like we don’t know how exactly gravity happens. 

For the tenth time. The theory is the body of knowledge about the fact of evolution. We recently learned about epigenetics and how it can influence evolution.  We will likely learn more. But we will never learn evolution is not a fact.  It is a fact.
   

TRANSLATION

" Evolution has gaps but is solid fact-OZskdoodle"

Copyright © 2000-2018 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.