Science against evolution

[kingschosen]

*waits again*

[Bucky Ball]

(28-01-2013 02:32 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  *waits again*

Hope you brought a sandwitch and a good book.
That this is still considered an argument in 2013 is simply astounding. Not only would ALL the radiometric dating, and ALL the other dating methods have to be wrong, AND be wrong in EXACTLY the same way, they would also have to all be wrong in exactly the same way, BOTH forward and in reverse. The combined (multiplied) probability of that is SO astoundingly low, it's simply impossibe. It's lower than (one / goggleplex). It's ZERO. There is no chance it's being true.
His ignorance of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 coming from the two different traditions (E and J), and how that happened , and why, (in the Documentary Hypothesis), also betrays a complete ignorance of the actual state of real Biblical Studies in 2013. The Documentary Hypothesis has been accepted by real scholars for at least 100 years, including the most conservative ones, (see The Interpreter's Bible original edition, edited by the renowned scholar and archaeologist, William F. ALbright, 1952, and his hundreds of conservative/seminary professor contributors). Dr. Richard Elliott Friedmann, and Rr. William M. Schniedewind PhD, Kershaw Chair of Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Studies and Professor of Biblical Studies and Northwest Semitic Languages at UCLA, author of "How the Bible Became a Book", also "The Word of God in Transition" and "Society and the Promise to David".
Richard Elliott Freidmann, PhD, "Who Wrote the Bible" all completely concur with the currect state of knowledge. Whoever this fool is, is simply an uneducated fool, biblically, and scientifically.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+Texts
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...olden+Calf

[kingschosen]

(28-01-2013 03:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(28-01-2013 02:32 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  *waits again*

Hope you brought a sandwitch and a good book.
That this is still considered an argument in 2013 is simply astounding. Not only would ALL the radiometric dating, and ALL the other dating methods have to be wrong, AND be wrong in EXACTLY the same way, they would also have to all be wrong in exactly the same way, BOTH forward and in reverse. The combined (multiplied) probability of that is SO astoundingly low, it's simply impossibe. It's lower than (one / goggleplex). It's ZERO. There is no chance it's being true.
His ignorance of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 coming from the two different traditions (E and J), and how that happened , and why, (in the Documentary Hypothesis), also betrays a complete ignorance of the actual state of real Biblical Studies in 2013. The Documentary Hypothesis has been accepted by real scholars for at least 100 years, including the most conservative ones, (see The Interpreter's Bible original edition, edited by the renowned scholar and archaeologist, William F. ALbright, 1952, and his hundreds of conservative/seminary professor contributors). Dr. Richard Elliott Friedmann, and Rr. William M. Schniedewind PhD, Kershaw Chair of Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Studies and Professor of Biblical Studies and Northwest Semitic Languages at UCLA, author of "How the Bible Became a Book", also "The Word of God in Transition" and "Society and the Promise to David".
Richard Elliott Freidmann, PhD, "Who Wrote the Bible" all completely concur with the currect state of knowledge. Whoever this fool is, is simply an uneducated fool, biblically, and scientifically.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+Texts
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...olden+Calf

I need to start reading again

Not a lot of time since the daughter arrived.

Sandwiches on the other hand... I eat a ton of those

[kingschosen]

(28-01-2013 02:32 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  *waits again*

*more waiting*

[Full Circle]

After 19 pages (all read in one sitting) one thing he wrote kept bouncing around in my head...

BIG BANGISM BIG BANGISM BIG BANGISM BIG BANGISM BIG BANGISM BIG BANGISM

me: "Yo, wanna go catch a flick?"
him: "Yeah, new porn film out, BIG BANGISM"

[Sceptical Prophet]

You know what, let's just solve this one real quick and take a look at who runs that shoddy looking site. Ignoring, of course, the fact that anyone who spends any time on the internet and sees a site claiming to be the "Official" something whilst looking like a primary school kid made it knows not to take whatever is said seriously.

Author: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/

"Bachelor in Electrical engineering" at a crappy university. Lol.

[Phaedrus]

Guys, it's not nice to rag on a guy's personal background, especially when he isn't there to defend it.



... However...

Quote:He began his career in analog circuit design, but
shifted to digital circuit design when he discovered it was
easier to design digital circuits than analog circuits.
Some of the digital circuits he designed were
microcomputers, which he programmed in assembly language.
He switched to full-time software design when he discovered
programming computers was easier than building them. He
then transferred to an organization that was planning a
large software project because thinking about programming is
easier than programming. Then he began lecturing about software engineering
in general, and the Ada programming language in particular,
because talking is much easier than thinking. He is now retired,
doing nothing, because nothing is easier than talking.

That does explain quite a bit.

[RightOfCenter]

(17-10-2012 09:07 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  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).

The two concepts are still fundamentally connected within the framework of this discussion. A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in American public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”

1 Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter (the "Big Bang") and emergence of life from nonlife (abiogenesis);
2 The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3 Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4 Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5 Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6 An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.

[RightOfCenter]

Wow. Apparently "Bucky Ball" can't handle being saved the time to re-post all the material on the websites that "Theophilus" directed him to and would rather that Theophilus re-invent the wheel and re-post ALL of the facts and information here too. Can't do the research on your own there Bucky? Perhaps you won't be able to "shoot down" what you find on that website (which I suspect is actually the case)? I'm seeing lots of bluster, but not a lot of reasonable discussion.

(17-10-2012 09:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(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.

[RightOfCenter]

(17-10-2012 03:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  The origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. Try again.

A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”

Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life