Science against evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2012, 08:59 AM
Science against evolution
How did life come into existence? There are two possible explanations. One is that natural processes brought about the exitence of simple, single-celled organisms and its descendants evolved to produce all the forms of life that exist today. The other is that it was created by God.

It is widely believed that science has proved that the first explanation is correct and those who reject it do so only because it contradicts their religious beliefs. This belief is false. Science is the attempt to find out things by means of observation and testing. The origin of life hasn't been observed and there is no way it can be tested scientifically.

The reality is that there are scientific facts that aren't compatible with the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Here is a site where you can find out about some of these facts:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

Each month a newletter is published with new information. Here is this month's newsletter.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/new.shtml

It includes an excellent article about how to teach evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i1f.htm

Here is an index of all the material on the site.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm

God's invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes theophilus's post
17-10-2012, 09:03 AM
RE: Science against evolution
Don't trust random websites, they might just be completely full of shit.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
17-10-2012, 09:07 AM
RE: Science against evolution
Why is this titled "science against evolution"? Maybe, I have spent too much time on the Cannabis Thread but you seem to be confusing origin of life (abiogenesis) and evolution (diversification).

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
17-10-2012, 09:08 AM
RE: Science against evolution
If they get their info from Scientific, peer reviewed journals than it might be worth it.

Doesn't look like they do though.

My Blog
[Image: 1z5qgiq.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2012, 09:34 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 12:42 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Science against evolution
(17-10-2012 08:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  How did life come into existence? There are two possible explanations. One is that natural processes brought about the existence of simple, single-celled organisms and its descendants evolved to produce all the forms of life that exist today. The other is that it was created by God.

It is widely believed that science has proved that the first explanation is correct and those who reject it do so only because it contradicts their religious beliefs. This belief is false. Science is the attempt to find out things by means of observation and testing. The origin of life hasn't been observed and there is no way it can be tested scientifically.

The reality is that there are scientific facts that aren't compatible with the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Here is a site where you can find out about some of these facts:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

Each month a newsletter is published with new information. Here is this month's newsletter.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/new.shtml

It includes an excellent article about how to teach evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i1f.htm

Here is an index of all the material on the site.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm


Argument for Ignorance, God of the gaps, OR in modern parlance : "Creation, yeah, I got god. I got an app for that".

Absolute 100% bullshit. What's your problem theophilus ? Can't you argue a point on your own ? You need to refer people to biased websites ? Give me any argument for your Creationist crap, and I'll shoot every one down. There are NOT "two explanations". There could be countless explanations, including the 'seeding" proposition from either comets or asteroids. Your God theory, is the LEAST probable of any of them all. The process of hydrophobic molecular structures eventually turned into cells which could reproduce, and evolve, has been demonstrated in a few possible ways, and is well known to Biologists and science. This process has been observed in the lab, and reproduced many times.

The fact is you NEED this argument to support the preposterous crap that your holy book is literally true. You think your idiot god doesn't wonder why you have so little faith in him, that you need this sort of weak support to believe in him, instead of a real relationship with him ? You obviously have no relationship with your imaginary friend, as well as have no knowledge of Science, Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Probability Theory, Chaos Theory, etc etc. The default position, if we do not have complete knowledge is NOT "oh god did it". The default position is "we don't know yet". You actually think your stupid god does not know you relegate him to an "ignorance plug in", for your unanswered questions ? You actually think so little of your god, that you place him on the dangerous cliff-edge of falling off, by ANY other possible credible explanation that happens to come along. I'm sure your god is REAL pleased about how liitle you think of him. What a pathetic excuse for a theist. Your god is a plug-in, to finish your model.

And BTW, why would you advertise your fake Book of Acts with that name ? The supposed writer of it changed his mind, about more than one subject, thus proving his original statements were either NOT made by the same self admitted liars, (which Paul and Luke were), or they were not inspired.

For whatever Psychological NEED, you NEED to explain all of the world TODAY. You NEED all the answers RIGHT NOW, like a two year old, having a tantrum in the grocery store. What this is all about is Psychology, not science or religion.

You actually DO believe in Evolution. If you or one of your family was in prison, and you or they could get out by the use of DNA, YOU would use it. DNA proves Evolution. You DO believe in evolution, if you have ever taken an antibiotic. You are just too ignorant of Biology and Genetics to get why that is.

BTW, Clyde, your website is a pathetic exercise in confirmation bias.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 13 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-10-2012, 11:24 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(17-10-2012 08:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  How did life come into existence? There are two possible explanations. One is that natural processes brought about the exitence of simple, single-celled organisms and its descendants evolved to produce all the forms of life that exist today. The other is that it was created by God.

It is widely believed that science has proved that the first explanation is correct and those who reject it do so only because it contradicts their religious beliefs. This belief is false. Science is the attempt to find out things by means of observation and testing. The origin of life hasn't been observed and there is no way it can be tested scientifically.

The reality is that there are scientific facts that aren't compatible with the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Here is a site where you can find out about some of these facts:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

Each month a newletter is published with new information. Here is this month's newsletter.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/new.shtml

It includes an excellent article about how to teach evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i1f.htm

Here is an index of all the material on the site.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm


Nice dot sig, one of my favorite bits of the bible. One suggestion dont use that site to test anything, try a biology text book, even look around wiki, but dont use that site. But, basically if your source says at any point it happened by magic, move along.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2012, 11:42 AM
RE: Science against evolution
"We try to stay away from astronomy nonsense because it is only peripherally related to evolution; but this time, we can justify it.

Cosmology is really just speculation about how the entire universe began and evolved. As such, it includes fanciful ideas about how and when the Earth was formed, which lead to stories about how life began and evolved on Earth. Granted, the supposed evolution of the cosmos is not biological evolution, but they are related.

Cosmology, like biological evolution, is nothing more than philosophy disguised as science. Yes, cosmologists take measurements and make calculations; but then they make lots of assumptions that can’t be verified and draw unwarranted conclusions which they expect to be accepted without question."


http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v15i12f.htm

'nuff said

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
17-10-2012, 12:31 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(17-10-2012 11:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:   Yes, cosmologists take measurements and make calculations; but then they make lots of assumptions that can’t be verified and draw unwarranted conclusions which they expect to be accepted without question."

So logically, we should trust the guys who *don't* take measurements and calculations with their *unwarranted assumptions* which they want to be *accepted without question* Dodgy FML. It must be lead in the water pipes or something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like morondog's post
17-10-2012, 12:56 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(17-10-2012 12:31 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(17-10-2012 11:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:   Yes, cosmologists take measurements and make calculations; but then they make lots of assumptions that can’t be verified and draw unwarranted conclusions which they expect to be accepted without question."

So logically, we should trust the guys who *don't* take measurements and calculations with their *unwarranted assumptions* which they want to be *accepted without question* Dodgy FML. It must be lead in the water pipes or something.

You hit it on the head.

Option 1: Some guys take measurements and make calculations but then make some assumptions to explain the data they just measured and calculated.

Option 2: Some guys skip the measuring, calculating, data collecting, and explanations and go straight to assumptions that are completely unfounded.

Apparently we're supposed to go with Option 2, because a book of fairy tales tells us to. Oh, and also because this website, built by people who believe, support, and defend those fairy tales - to the extent that they refuse any effort at all to even consider measuring, calculating, data collection, or explanation - also tells us to.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
17-10-2012, 03:21 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(17-10-2012 08:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  How did life come into existence? There are two possible explanations. One is that natural processes brought about the exitence of simple, single-celled organisms and its descendants evolved to produce all the forms of life that exist today. The other is that it was created by God.

It is widely believed that science has proved that the first explanation is correct and those who reject it do so only because it contradicts their religious beliefs. This belief is false. Science is the attempt to find out things by means of observation and testing. The origin of life hasn't been observed and there is no way it can be tested scientifically.

The reality is that there are scientific facts that aren't compatible with the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Here is a site where you can find out about some of these facts:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

Each month a newletter is published with new information. Here is this month's newsletter.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/new.shtml

It includes an excellent article about how to teach evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i1f.htm

Here is an index of all the material on the site.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm

The origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. Try again.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: