Free Speech
FSA Ticket | Today | Join | Member | Search | Who's On | 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 06:27:08Copy HTML

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.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #151
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 09:40:51Copy HTML

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

" I the GREAT and POWERFUL OZskdoodle have pronounced it so-skdoodle"


Are you having problems with the fact that some of these admittedly atheist scientist have stated that SCIENCE has pointed to a CREATOR or INTEKKIGENCE behind the design of all that exists?

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #152
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 09:48:19Copy HTML

 Are you having problems with the fact that some of these admittedly atheist scientist have stated that SCIENCE has pointed to a CREATOR or INTEKKIGENCE behind the design of all that exists?

___

As much as you want to make this about me, it is about science.

Science has not pointed to a creator. You have provided no science whatsoever that indicates this.

You have provided no evidence of any science or scientist who says evolution is not fact.  None

This is page 5, why not provide your evidence?

You mischaracterized the scientists you posted as denying evolution when none of them did.  In fact, the two scientists you seemed to really like accepted evolution as fact.

You are either very stupid or lying.

If you have any science.....talk to me.



"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 #153
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 10:07:07Copy HTML

 My bad.  This is page 6.  Time to enter the discussion don't you think?  Where is the science that says there is a creator?  Where is the scientific research that says evolution is not a fact.

Why would you babble on for pages without providing any evidence?

"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 #154
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 10:12:56Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 My bad.  This is page 6.  Time to enter the discussion don't you think?  Where is the science that says there is a creator?  Where is the scientific research that says evolution is not a fact.

Why would you babble on for pages without providing any evidence?


Not what I said BUT some of the SCIENTIST, much more accredited than yourself, have posted that science has pointed to at least an INTELLIGENCE behind the design of creation.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #155
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:18-04-2018 10:32:31Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 My bad.  This is page 6.  Time to enter the discussion don't you think?  Where is the science that says there is a creator?  Where is the scientific research that says evolution is not a fact.

Why would you babble on for pages without providing any evidence?


skdoodle says:

No scientists deny evolution" . No means NONE BUT we have presented a few representative of many more , which of course skdoodle doesn't accept SO skdoodle then proceeds to pronounce these more accredited individuals than skdoodle as not credible, simply because skdoodle doesn't like what they said..

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.

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.



 

In 1980, British physicist H.S. Lipson produced  in the May issue of Physics Bulletin, a refereed science journal. In his article, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life’s origin and, second, on his non-association with creationists. He then noted: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.” Dr. Lipson went on to ask how well evolution has withstood the years of scientific testing, and suggested that “to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” Lipson concluded: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”


 British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the serious problems—once again, especially from the fields of thermodynamics—with various theories about the naturalistic origin of life on the Earth. Dr. Hoyle wrote:

I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth.

Dr. Hoyle has described the evolutionary concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner.

in 1985, molecular biologist Michael Denton authored Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in which he stated:   The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon, runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought.... Put simply, no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature (pp. 16,327,353, emp. in orig.).


There are MANY MORE but skdoodle will have a rationalization for his "debunking" each more accredited person that himself SIMPLY because it doesn't support HIS pronouncements.

Of COURSE skdoodle will say HE has taken it upon himself to debunk these MORE ACREDITED individuals than himself.


skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #156
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 04:06:55Copy HTML

Not what I said BUT some of the SCIENTIST, much more accredited than yourself, have posted that science has pointed to at least an INTELLIGENCE behind the design of creation.

___

You know how much I am accredited? I was named US Environmental Management Expert of the Year 2018.  I declined because I am too busy with people who need my expertise.

Lets take a look at your latest stupidity.

No means NONE BUT we have presented a few representative of many more

You have actually presented none as I have shown you.  They fully accepted the fact of evolution and were merely skeptical about the main causes. Some doubt the theory, which again, is merely the body of knowledge about how evolution works.  Nothing wrong with doubting that.  As I have shown you, we recently discovered epigenetic effects that play a role.

You have now presented.  Dr. Lipson.  Dr. Lipson was a physicist....he is long ago dead.  Your quote from 1980 was nearly 40 years ago, before we discovered epigenetics...and guess what else.

Lipson reversed his position before he died you fucking idiot.

in a later issue of Physics Bulletin, Lipson clarifies his position:

" The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record.

- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.

Note that he claims that it's obvious that species have evolved, something that can be seen in the fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

_______________________

Why don't you ever cite your links?  I know why...they come from religious non scientific creationist tripe websites.


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 #157
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 04:11:52Copy HTML

 Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the serious problems—once again, especially from the fields of thermodynamics.

__  Ah yes, the second law...how can order tend from disorder?  Long ago disproven.  Order comes about naturally by many means.  He is also a long ago dead scientist.

Do you realize he also rejected the Big Bang?...which is now proven.

This quote is going to sting.  You better get your first aid kit out.

We are inescapably the result of a long heritage of learning, adaptation, mutation and evolution, the product of a history which predates our birth as a biological species and stretches back over many thousand millennia... Going further back, we share a common ancestry with our fellow primates; and going still further back, we share a common ancestry with all other living creatures and plants down to the simplest microbe. The further back we go, the greater the difference from external appearances and behavior patterns which we observe today.

Sir Fred Hoyle, Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the Universe (1978), p. 15

He believed God set it in motion...but evolution is a fact.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

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 #158
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 04:16:30Copy HTML

 Denton is actually the first person who denies evolution that you posted.


He states we have never observed evolution like you....in his 1986 book that has long ago been disproven.  We have observed it....many times.  See my examples.  You and he are both free to argue with me about the actual observations of evolution.

Present his data...oh wait....he has never published any research on the subject.

The proof that Denton is wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

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 #159
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 04:17:04Copy HTML

 This is Wale.

Image result for when you are dead, it's the same when you are stupid

"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 #160
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 05:35:44Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

Not what I said BUT some of the SCIENTIST, much more accredited than yourself, have posted that science has pointed to at least an INTELLIGENCE behind the design of creation.

___

You know how much I am accredited? I was named US Environmental Management Expert of the Year 2018.  I declined because I am too busy with people who need my expertise.

Lets take a look at your latest stupidity.

No means NONE BUT we have presented a few representative of many more

You have actually presented none as I have shown you.  They fully accepted the fact of evolution and were merely skeptical about the main causes. Some doubt the theory, which again, is merely the body of knowledge about how evolution works.  Nothing wrong with doubting that.  As I have shown you, we recently discovered epigenetic effects that play a role.

You have now presented.  Dr. Lipson.  Dr. Lipson was a physicist....he is long ago dead.  Your quote from 1980 was nearly 40 years ago, before we discovered epigenetics...and guess what else.

Lipson reversed his position before he died you fucking idiot.

in a later issue of Physics Bulletin, Lipson clarifies his position:

" The Theory does not merely say that species have slowly evolved: that is obvious from the fossil record.

- H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.

Note that he claims that it's obvious that species have evolved, something that can be seen in the fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

_______________________

Why don't you ever cite your links?  I know why...they come from religious non scientific creationist tripe websites.


Next





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, as I posted earlier. NEXT

keep using epithets, you lose.

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #161
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 05:39:16Copy HTML

Reply to wale63

Reply to skwanderer

 My bad.  This is page 6.  Time to enter the discussion don't you think?  Where is the science that says there is a creator?  Where is the scientific research that says evolution is not a fact.

Why would you babble on for pages without providing any evidence?

skdoodle says:

You lose.

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 "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #162
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 05:40:40Copy HTML

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Reply to wale63

Reply to skwanderer

 My bad.  This is page 6.  Time to enter the discussion don't you think?  Where is the science that says there is a creator?  Where is the scientific research that says evolution is not a fact.

Why would you babble on for pages without providing any evidence?

skdoodle says:

You lose.


Not at all, your desires notwithstanding.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #163
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 05:42:58Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 Denton is actually the first person who denies evolution that you posted.


He states we have never observed evolution like you....in his 1986 book that has long ago been disproven.  We have observed it....many times.  See my examples.  You and he are both free to argue with me about the actual observations of evolution.

Present his data...oh wait....he has never published any research on the subject.

The proof that Denton is wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

NEXT


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

Some Darwin defenders have cited Margulis’s eminence as evidence that critics have freedom to express their views. Margulis doesn’t agree, noting that “anyone who is overtly critical of the foundations of his science is persona non grata.

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #164
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 05:59:25Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 This is Wale.

Image result for when you are dead, it's the same when you are stupid


skdoodle

Image result for Ass

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #165
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 06:05:05Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 Denton is actually the first person who denies evolution that you posted.


He states we have never observed evolution like you....in his 1986 book that has long ago been disproven.  We have observed it....many times.  See my examples.  You and he are both free to argue with me about the actual observations of evolution.

Present his data...oh wait....he has never published any research on the subject.

The proof that Denton is wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

NEXT

"...Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life? This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, To the more the universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex.To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos...."



"...Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being? How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life? The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

The scientific atheists have scrambled to explain this troubling mystery by suggesting the existence of a multiverse—an infinite set of universes, each with its own parameters. In some universes, the conditions are wrong for life; however, by the sheer size of this putative multiverse, there must be a universe where everything is right. But if it takes an immense power of nature to create one universe, then how much more powerful would that force have to be in order to create infinitely many universes? So the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God. The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God. Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological and cognitive—to be what they are..."

http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #166
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 06:25:20Copy HTML

skdoodle

Image result for Ass
 

You lose again, wale.

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 "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #167
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 08:15:20Copy HTML

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

skdoodle

Image result for Ass
 

You lose again, wale.


Go read some books and learn to read before you do, then when you stop learning to write with crayons, come back and join the discussion
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #168
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 10:20:53Copy HTML

 A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and once the wife of Carl Sagan, biologist Lynn Margulis (1938–2011)

___


OMFG...I showed you yesterday that Lynn Margulis agreed evolution is a fact. A FACT!  She merely felt symbiosis explained some of the mechanism better. 

Post 138

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.

Is this how you do it Walrus?  Just wait a day and post the same lie over again?

You are more stupid than I imagined...and I imagined you were very very stupid.

"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 #169
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 10:22:42Copy HTML

 Walnut brain wants to argue evolution via misquotes of scientists who accept evolution as fact (as I have demonstrated) or quotes of idiots.

Why?

Because he doesn't have a god damned clue about any of the science and couldn't debate the actual science to save his soul.

I have posted numerous citations of actual observations of evolution.  Wale's responses to the actual observations of evolution happening listed below.

1.

2.

3.

4.





"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 #170
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 10:23:58Copy HTML

 Let's see.  I present data and evidence from scientific journals.

Wale presents image of a donkey and claims victory.

lolol

You couldnt make up this retarded troll with a team of comedy writers.

"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 #171
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 11:38:59Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and once the wife of Carl Sagan, biologist Lynn Margulis (1938–2011)

___


OMFG...I showed you yesterday that Lynn Margulis agreed evolution is a fact. A FACT!  She merely felt symbiosis explained some of the mechanism better. 

Post 138

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.

Is this how you do it Walrus?  Just wait a day and post the same lie over again?

You are more stupid than I imagined...and I imagined you were very very stupid.


As I explained yesterday, I had no quarrel with that BUT showing SOME scientists, ON THAT side, having problems with aspects of evolution, which MEANS that it is not a unanimous body of thought that is agreed to and there is room for revision, which could include a wide part down the road, part of my earlier presentation of how scientific principles has over time been revised and/or scuttled. Same probably will happen with evolution.

An inverse thinker like yourself thinks very highly of ....YOURSELF, which means you aren't really an intellect.

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #172
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 11:39:38Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 Let's see.  I present data and evidence from scientific journals.

Wale presents image of a donkey and claims victory.

lolol

You couldnt make up this retarded troll with a team of comedy writers.


speaking of yourself?
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #173
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:19-04-2018 11:43:34Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 Walnut brain wants to argue evolution via misquotes of scientists who accept evolution as fact (as I have demonstrated) or quotes of idiots.

Why?

Because he doesn't have a god damned clue about any of the science and couldn't debate the actual science to save his soul.

I have posted numerous citations of actual observations of evolution.  Wale's responses to the actual observations of evolution happening listed below.

1.

2.

3.

4.






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.”

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #174
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:20-04-2018 11:47:20Copy HTML

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

skdoodle

Image result for Ass
 

You lose again, wale.


Go read some books and learn to read before you do, then when you stop learning to write with crayons, come back and join the discussion

Crayons?  Really?  Wale, you need to take a closer look at my avatar pic.


No crayons for me.  LOL
I am greatly amused by your silly insults that assume I possess a low level of intelligence.  If you only knew the significance of those 4 well sharpened pencils in a Dundee marmalade jar.

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 "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #175
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:20-04-2018 05:36:32Copy HTML

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

skdoodle

Image result for Ass
 You lose again, wale.


Go read some books and learn to read before you do, then when you stop learning to write with crayons, come back and join the discussion

Crayons?  Really?  Wale, you need to take a closer look at my avatar pic.


No crayons for me.  LOL
I am greatly amused by your silly insults that assume I possess a low level of intelligence.  If you only knew the significance of those 4 well sharpened pencils in a Dundee marmalade jar.


You keep declaring yourself the winner, but since you are an inverse thinker, in reality that means you really lost, reinforced by your many epithets.
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #176
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:20-04-2018 07:26:25Copy HTML

 As I explained yesterday, I had no quarrel with that BUT showing SOME scientists, ON THAT side, having problems with aspects of evolution,

___

but not the FACT it occurs.  I have some issues with some evolution data as well.  That is part of the body of evidence that describes how it works (the Theory of Evolution about the Fact of Evolution).  We likely don't have all that correct.  Timelines, which species lineages are more closely related, the relative contribution of epigenetics and more.  None of this says evolution is not a fact.  It is a fact that it has occurred.

If you don't believe it is a fact...then argue the data...not what some dead scientist said long ago.

"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 #177
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:20-04-2018 07:31:05Copy HTML

 When I show him both Fodor and Marguilis said they accept evolution as fact, he just posts the same shit again.

You cant debate with an idiot.

It is page 6 Wale.....you might want to enter this debate at some point and post the science that says evolution is not a proven fact as you have claimed.  Something that counters our actual observations of it occurring might be nice.

"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
Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #178
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:20-04-2018 08:44:02Copy HTML

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Reply to wale63

Go read some books and learn to read before you do, then when you stop learning to write with crayons, come back and join the discussion

Crayons?  Really?  Wale, you need to take a closer look at my avatar pic.


No crayons for me.  LOL
I am greatly amused by your silly insults that assume I possess a low level of intelligence.  If you only knew the significance of those 4 well sharpened pencils in a Dundee marmalade jar.


You keep declaring yourself the winner, but since you are an inverse thinker, in reality that means you really lost, reinforced by your many epithets.

You are obviously confusing me with someone else, perhaps even yourself.  In the exchange between us, you are the only one using epithets.

  Additionally, I am not declaring myself the winner.  I was initially commenting on the exchange between you and skwanderer using your reasoning.
  You told him "keep using epithets, you lose."  Then, you continued to use epithets against skwanderer.  So, in other words and by your own logic, you lose.

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 "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #179
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:21-04-2018 02:57:55Copy HTML

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Reply to wale63

Reply to Bogus0Pomp

Reply to wale63

Go read some books and learn to read before you do, then when you stop learning to write with crayons, come back and join the discussion

Crayons?  Really?  Wale, you need to take a closer look at my avatar pic.


No crayons for me.  LOL
I am greatly amused by your silly insults that assume I possess a low level of intelligence.  If you only knew the significance of those 4 well sharpened pencils in a Dundee marmalade jar.


You keep declaring yourself the winner, but since you are an inverse thinker, in reality that means you really lost, reinforced by your many epithets.

You are obviously confusing me with someone else, perhaps even yourself.  In the exchange between us, you are the only one using epithets.

  Additionally, I am not declaring myself the winner.  I was initially commenting on the exchange between you and skwanderer using your reasoning.
  You told him "keep using epithets, you lose."  Then, you continued to use epithets against skwanderer.  So, in other words and by your own logic, you lose.


More evidence of your confused mind. I didn't use epithets, YOU just can't read properly.
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #180
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:21-04-2018 02:59:23Copy HTML

Reply to skwanderer

 When I show him both Fodor and Marguilis said they accept evolution as fact, he just posts the same shit again.

You cant debate with an idiot.

It is page 6 Wale.....you might want to enter this debate at some point and post the science that says evolution is not a proven fact as you have claimed.  Something that counters our actual observations of it occurring might be nice.


when scientists have problems within the idea of evolution and are at odds with others within that idea, perhaps the idea itself. is flawed'

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.”  

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