Science Disproves Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2012, 10:52 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(14-08-2012 09:54 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  FSM is right. Pahu, if you want to stick around, you'll need to take part in your threads instead of spamming the boards with other peoples shit. It's a discussion forum. Discussion.

FSM, do as you see fit. I leave Pahu in your capable hands.

[Image: ban-hammer-featured1.jpg]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like kingschosen's post
15-08-2012, 02:58 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
So I've banned the op.

They are clearly here to spam the forum with their copy pasted posts.
They have shown no interest in returning to threads they started. No interest in a discussion or even a response to any reply their thread gets.

The reason for the ban isn't the content of the threads. That's alowed, even if it is utter shite. Its for the spam. And the fact they exhibit bot like behaviour.

[Image: icon-nobots.gif]

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
15-08-2012, 03:00 AM
Science Disproves Evolution
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a kilt for thus bringing salvation upon our land.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Erxomai's post
15-08-2012, 03:07 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
[Image: ban-hammer-featured1.jpg]
I really like this.
It looks like the dragon is going to eat the guy's head, after he finishes blowdrying his hair with his combination hammer/blowdryer.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
15-08-2012, 03:12 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Do creationists know that even other theists think they are full of crap?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like fstratzero's post
15-08-2012, 03:19 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(15-08-2012 03:12 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Do creationists know that even other theists think they are full of crap?

No, they all hate equally and together, until they find out their gods are different, then they have a schism. It's all good. Smile

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like kim's post
18-08-2012, 11:06 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Well, pointed this out the last time this troll posted:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid145000

But , when one does a google search for the exact phrase:

"Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a). "

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=sear...56&bih=590

I get 6530 results on the exact quote. Perhaps someone has already debated the relevant points the other 6500 or so times this has been posted.

This bozo was banned a while back from the Friendly Atheist forum. Really, it takes a lot for that to happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 01:47 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(14-08-2012 01:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Too bad you are such a fucking idiot you don't even know that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Are you as old as your articles ? Maybe you need a Alzheimer evaluation, old Pahu. And when you're out at the doctor, stop by the library, and check out "Science 101", and review the steps of the method, and then come back and tell us what your null hypothesis was, and what your test was, and what data you have. Life is short. Some idiocy, is not worth more than 5 seconds of intelligent people's time, which is why I keep this shit ready for the Silly Willy posts.



Damn Bucky...... Drinking Beverage

thanks for posting that.. Now I don't have anything to say about the OP hehe.. took care of it ya did!

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ddrew's post
19-08-2012, 04:50 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(14-08-2012 05:45 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Tits or GTFO.

You rang?

[Image: Konachan.com+-+119906+2girls+cleavage+he...erwear.jpg]

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
21-08-2012, 11:18 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(14-08-2012 01:29 PM)Pahu Wrote:  
The Law of Biogenesis


Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Ibid., p. 48.

What Wald did not appreciate in 1954 (before, as just one example, the genetic code was discovered) was how the complexity in life is vastly greater than anyone at that time could have imagined. [See pages 14-20] So, today, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. Unfortunately, several generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our universities that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists think show vast time periods.

Readers will later see this.

b. “The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]



lots of garbage in that post but the opening idea does have merit.

Biological processes are not defined within physics to the molecular level.

and if the reductionary scope is held, then YES 'that' science does disprove an 'evolution' (by environment).

So the thread, although ignorant renders a conundrum; religious wingnuts can use science (the physics/math) to discount an 'evolution' by trying to define the 'process' to the molecular level.

ie.... the current paradigm (walking the planck) is wrong.

get over it!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: