Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

Genetics does not mean that it has no creative intelligent force behind the mechanism. Yes, I no longer subscribe to the theory that it came about as a result of "natural selection," or survival of the fittest.

The thing is, all you have to base on this “creative intelligent force”, is merely a personal belief of something that don’t exist except in hearsay & belief in superstition, which are no better than believing in ghost, fairy and magic.

This “force” you’ve been referring to, is not only don’t exist, it require to dispense with natural reality, in another word, believing in the supernatural, which isn’t natural at all.

Believing in this “creative intelligent force” required zero knowledge of biology, and certainly nothing how organisms function, nor the mechanisms of any biological processes. There are no “science” in either Creationism or in this Intelligent Design.

This is why people of the Discovery Institute, who invented Intelligent Design, are just bunch of unintelligent hacks and fools.

 

[exchemist]

Not true.

OK, then refer me a post in which someone other than you brings up the age of the soil, in the context of Mendel's experiments.

 

[John53]

OK, then refer me a post in which someone other than you brings up the age of the soil, in the context of Mendel's experiments.

I think she's talking about me making a joke to Dan

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Description in a detailed way of processes does not in any way confirm the theory of evolution.

Nor does your endless denials show that theory to be wrong.

However, we do have something -- we have a wide world chock full of life in so many forms that it boggles the mind. What's more, we have so many life forms that so closely resemble one another that there can be no doubt that they are related, even though they cannot reproduce with each other.

And absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever that you have said so endlessly has anything at all to say in explanation of that reality. At least Darwin went to a little trouble to figure out his theory. The only trouble you take is to type witless denials.

 

[exchemist]

I think she's talking about me making a joke to Dan

But that was about soil moving, not age.

 

[John53]

But that was about soil moving, not age.

It's a challenge to follow the logic, I know I can't. I'm so confused I posted in the wrong thread lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

The line of ascent (or descent) from a few cells is virtual conjecture.

Right, tell that to the courts. All of those paternity tests that have been taken are no good because they are "virtual conjecture". There are a lot of guys that would thank you for that. I guess that all rape convictions done through DNA would be "conjecture" too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Description in a detailed way of processes does not in any way confirm the theory of evolution.

LOL! Sorry, but that is the very definition of confirmation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nor does your endless denials show that theory to be wrong.

However, we do have something -- we have a wide world chock full of life in so many forms that it boggles the mind. What's more, we have so many life forms that so closely resemble one another that there can be no doubt that they are related, even though they cannot reproduce with each other.

And absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever that you have said so endlessly has anything at all to say in explanation of that reality. At least Darwin went to a little

It's a challenge to follow the logic, I know I can't. I'm so confused I posted in the wrong thread lol

Good morning! @John53 is correct, it was about a dumb joke that um -- someone told -- Can't fight some of 'powers' here that be. Hmm? Sad joke. Yet no one contested the soil shift in terms that make sense. Nope. You can keep telling me what I should believe and making jokes because it makes so much sense to you. I understand the logic -- but no longer agree. The logic as exemplified by the theory of -- "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest," they are theories, yes -- like it or not -- birds remain birds even if their beaks grow larger or smaller. Nope, sorry. Can I explain HOW it was done by a superior intelligent power? No, I cannot. I was not there. But I'm no longer subscribing to the theory as IF no superior power of intelligence is there. I'm here, as you are, because of a fabulous combination of elements from parental structure, without which we would not be here. Upon death, the molecules composing my body, PLUS the power of life within will dissipate. Now tell me you either do not believe in God or you deny the power of God to put all the genes and cells and molecules together to form a person. OK Thanks. From dirt to dirt. Nothing will take that away. Except --let's see if you can figure it out. Hey, I know. Maybe some rich person can hire some scientists to figure it out, lol, huh? (Another joke...) Not now of course, maybe someone will from evolution that will figure it out, and um ... yup, I know...(have a good one!!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good morning! @John53 is correct, it was about a dumb joke that um -- someone told -- Can't fight some of 'powers' here that be. Hmm? Sad joke. Yet no one contested the soil shift in terms that make sense. Nope. You can keep telling me what I should believe and making jokes because it makes so much sense to you. I understand the logic -- but no longer agree. The logic as exemplified by the theory of -- "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest," they are theories, yes -- like it or not -- birds remain birds even if their beaks grow larger or smaller. Nope, sorry. Can I explain HOW it was done by a superior intelligent power? No, I cannot. I was not there. But I'm no longer subscribing to the theory as IF no superior power of intelligence is there. I'm here, as you are, because of a fabulous combination of elements from parental structure, without which we would not be here. Upon death, the molecules composing my body, PLUS the power of life within will dissipate. Now tell me you either do not believe in God or you deny the power of God to put all the genes and cells and molecules together to form a person. OK Thanks. From dirt to dirt. Nothing will take that away. Except --let's see if you can figure it out. Hey, I know. Maybe some rich person can hire some scientists to figure it out, lol, huh? (Another joke...) Not now of course, maybe someone will from evolution that will figure it out, and um ... yup, I know...(have a good one!!)

Just because your silly arguments have been refuted that does not mean that people have not made any sense. If you do not understand a refutation there is nothing wrong with asking questions.


And we see that you still do not understand what a scientific theory is. It is not a theory in the sense that you are trying to use a word. In the sciences nothing tops a theory. One might as well say "Law". The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. You may not understand the facts, but that does not make them go away.


You may not understand the theory of gravity, but every time that you jump off of a cliff you will fall. Trust me, I have watched enough Roadrunner cartoons to know this.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just because your silly arguments have been refuted that does not mean that people have not made any sense. If you do not understand a refutation there is nothing wrong with asking questions.


And we see that you still do not understand what a scientific theory is. It is not a theory in the sense that you are trying to use a word. In the sciences nothing tops a theory. One might as well say "Law". The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. You may not understand the facts, but that does not make them go away.


You may not understand the theory of gravity, but every time that you jump off of a cliff you will fall. Trust me, I have watched enough Roadrunner cartoons to know this.

Funny thing -- I was listening to the news a few minutes ago about President Biden chastising Uganda for its horrifically severe anti-gay laws (up to and including death), while I was reading @YoursTrue's post, and thinking to myself, "you know, there is a cure for ignorance, but unfortunately, you can't force the patient to take it."

 

[John53]

@YoursTrue you need to edit your post so it's not one giant quote.

 

[Astrophile]

Plants and animals are supposed to have come from a common ancestor say scientists. According to the theory, of course. Further, scientists say there are problems with dating of fossils. Because the "record is like a movie with most of the frames cut out. Because it is so incomplete, it can be difficult to establish exactly when particular evolutionary changes happened." (New Scientist)

It is difficult but not impossible; over the last 200 years geologists have devoted a great deal of time and effort to finding and improving methods of measuring the ages of rocks and fossils. Also, the fact that 'it can be difficult to establish exactly when particular evolutionary changes happened' does not cast doubt on the reality of those evolutionary changes.

 

[Astrophile]

Humans are the only animals to reproduce through sexual intercourse.

Shouldn't there be a 'not' in this sentence?

 

[Astrophile]

Yours True said (post 6,609), 'Good morning! @John53 is correct, it was about a dumb joke that um -- someone told -- Can't fight some of 'powers' here that be. Hmm? Sad joke. Yet no one contested the soil shift in terms that make sense. Nope.'

I don't understand your reasoning here. I agree that soils shift (google 'soil creep', 'solifluction', 'landslides', 'mudflows', 'debris flows' and 'lahars' for examples), but I do not understand how these shifts of surface material vitiate the measured ages of the solid rocks that underlie the soils. Would you like to present examples of the sort of soil shifts that you are talking about, and to explain the consequences of these shifts for the dating of rocks and fossils?

 

[John53]

Yours True said (post 6,609), 'Good morning! @John53 is correct, it was about a dumb joke that um -- someone told -- Can't fight some of 'powers' here that be. Hmm? Sad joke. Yet no one contested the soil shift in terms that make sense. Nope.'

I don't understand your reasoning here. I agree that soils shift (google 'soil creep', 'solifluction', 'landslides', 'mudflows', 'debris flows' and 'lahars' for examples), but I do not understand how these shifts of surface material vitiate the measured ages of the solid rocks that underlie the soils. Would you like to present examples of the sort of soil shifts that you are talking about, and to explain the consequences of these shifts for the dating of rocks and fossils?

Can I have an English translation? Or even better an Aussie English translation?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is difficult but not impossible; over the last 200 years geologists have devoted a great deal of time and effort to finding and improving methods of measuring the ages of rocks and fossils. Also, the fact that 'it can be difficult to establish exactly when particular evolutionary changes happened' does not cast doubt on the reality of those evolutionary changes.

It certainly casts doubt on the accuracy of when anything happened. But, if you don't think so, hey that's the way it is (in your mind).

 

[YoursTrue]

Yours True said (post 6,609), 'Good morning! @John53 is correct, it was about a dumb joke that um -- someone told -- Can't fight some of 'powers' here that be. Hmm? Sad joke. Yet no one contested the soil shift in terms that make sense. Nope.'

I don't understand your reasoning here. I agree that soils shift (google 'soil creep', 'solifluction', 'landslides', 'mudflows', 'debris flows' and 'lahars' for examples), but I do not understand how these shifts of surface material vitiate the measured ages of the solid rocks that underlie the soils. Would you like to present examples of the sort of soil shifts that you are talking about, and to explain the consequences of these shifts for the dating of rocks and fossils?

It casts doubt on the accuracy of the dating of bones that either lie in the sediment or have absorbed the soil.

 

[gnostic]

Shouldn't there be a 'not' in this sentence?

You're right.

Unfortunately I cannot edit the post

 

[gnostic]

It casts doubt on the accuracy of the dating of bones that either lie in the sediment or have absorbed the soil.

No it doesn't.

Any shift in soil will also move the remains.

Plus, while the remain are only buried topsoil, the uppermost layer, fossilisation haven't yet begun.

plus. The sediments won't have yet to turn soil into stone too. It takes time for that to happen as in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions of years...the same applied to for buried remains of organisms, fossilization take long time; they don’t turn into fossils when they are buried.