Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Yes, a few extremists disagree with some aspects of evolution, but they are not getting much traction. None of them support you by the way. Al of the people that you have linked have agreed with the fact of evolution, they just disagree with some of the details.

Exactly, this is the point all my sources are pro-evolution, they’re all top scientists and respectful mainstream scientific organizations yet you call them extremists, would you like that I quote the scientists of the “Discovery Institute” such as "Stephen C. Meyer" and many others? I can if you wish, would that make you happier? I don’t think so.

And even worse none of them argued for a necessary being.

ToE and necessary being are separate argument. But yes, I think most of those who do not accept the ToE, accept the necessary being.

 

[We Never Know]

No, real world observations do not support gradualism, latest empirical evidence of the 21st century disproved the Modern Synthesis

Can you share the evidence that disproves that or is it a secret?

 

[LIIA]

Not finding all of them does not harm evolution at all.

Nonsense, I never mentioned anything about finding all of them. You fail to understand the point as usual. Here it is. Read it again. You may get it.

“How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.” says anthropologist Bernard Wood.

Oldest member of human family found : Nature News

 

[LIIA]

Can you share the evidence that disproves that or is it a secret?

didn't I share it numerous times? see # 1864

Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

 

[We Never Know]

didn't I share it numerous times? see # 1864

Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

"Considering the number of genes in a genome and possible combinations that can be randomly produced in nature for each single species, there wouldn't be enough material or time in the whole universe for nature to try out all the possible interactions even over the long period of billions of years of the alleged evolutionary process, even for a single species"

I see you error. Evolution doesn't try out all possible interactions. It goes with what works at the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incorrect. There are examples after examples of it. And yes, the fossil record supports gradualism too.

You keep showing that you have no understanding at all of what you are debating against.

Do you want some help? I can seriously help you out here.

 

[LIIA]

Yes, at one point the Arabic world was at the forefront of scientific experiment and knowledge. Until all of a sudden they went dark. Do you know what happened to them? Muslim fundamentalists happened to them. Much akin to you they became science deniers.

You acknowledged the rule of the “Islamic Golden Age" for establishing the basis of modern science and the betterment of humans? Then we’re in agreement. Other than that, your Ad Hominem is meaningless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

didn't I share it numerous times? see # 1864

Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

No, that is just you referring to old lost arguments once again.

 

[LIIA]

Incorrect. There are examples after examples of it. And yes, the fossil record supports gradualism too.

really?

You keep showing that you have no understanding at all of what you are debating against.

Do you want some help? I can seriously help you out here.

pathetic. help yourself.

 

[LIIA]

No, that is just you referring to old lost arguments once again.

that wasn't addressed to you, why're you worried of others getting informed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You acknowledged the rule of the “Islamic Golden Age" for establishing the basis of modern science and the betterment of humans? Then we’re in agreement. Other than that, your Ad Hominem is meaningless.

The Greeks had more to do with starting science. I merely acknowledged that at one point Arabs were at the forefront. Islam does not appear to have been the driving force. And you got some of your claims incorrect. Yes, the shape of modern numbers are Arabic in origin. But the concept did not arise with them That was first developed in India. And again, I have no problem giving credit to an even further eastern country. But the Arabic nations did greatly aid the advancement of the sciences. But sadly when fundamentalism took its grip on Islam it took the Arabic countries out of the competition.

 

[LIIA]

I see you error. Evolution doesn't try out all possible interactions. It goes with what works at the time.

I never claimed it does or must try all possible interactions yet random evolution stays a mathematical impossibility. read the article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, real world observations do not support gradualism, latest empirical evidence of the 21st century disproved the Modern Synthesis

That is funny. No one seems to have noticed it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly, this is the point all my sources are pro-evolution, they’re all top scientists and respectful mainstream scientific organizations yet you call them extremists, would you like that I

No, I have pointed out that the people that you have used do not deny evolution. They only disagree on certain aspects of it. And like so many that have discovered a new part of evolution some of them tended to over estimate the importance of their work. There ahs been no major revolution in evolutionary sciences. That is why you had to rely on opinion pieces and not actual peer reviewed science.

quote the scientists of the “Discovery Institute” such as "Stephen C. Meyer" and many others? I can if you wish, would that make you happier? I don’t think so.

ToE and necessary being are separate argument. But yes, I think most of those who do not accept the ToE, accept the necessary being.

There are no "scientists" at the Disco Toot. Boy are you ever confused. None of them are researchers. None of them are scientists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never claimed it does or must try all possible interactions yet random evolution stays a mathematical impossibility. read the article.

An article that overstates a person's work is not a refutation. Are you referring to the article that was not even peer reviewed again?

 

[LIIA]

The Greeks had more to do with starting science. I merely acknowledged that at one point Arabs were at the forefront. Islam does not appear to have been the driving force. And you got some of your claims incorrect. Yes, the shape of modern numbers are Arabic in origin. But the concept did not arise with them That was first developed in India. And again, I have no problem giving credit to an even further eastern country. But the Arabic nations did greatly aid the advancement of the sciences. But sadly when fundamentalism took its grip on Islam it took the Arabic countries out of the competition.

it's not really specifically about the Arabic nations but rather the "Islamic Golden Age". and no, Greeks didn't establish the basis of modern science but yes, the numbers developed in India, but the Arabs collected, advanced and spread the knowledge of all older civilizations (Greeks, Romans, Persian, India, etc.) to the world.

 

[LIIA]

There are no "scientists" at the Disco Toot. Boy are you ever confused. None of them are researchers. None of them are scientists.

pathetic ad hominem

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's not really specifically about the Arabic nations but rather the "Islamic Golden Age". and no, Greeks didn't establish the basis of modern science but yes, the numbers developed in India, but the Arabs collected, advanced and spread the knowledge of all older civilizations (Greeks, Romans, Persian, India, etc.) to the world.

Why do you think that the Greeks didn't? When it comes to the modern scientific method that was fleshed out in Europe. Some Arabs were well on the way to developing the scientific method, but one fundamentalism took over that knowledge was lost. It was never formalized by the Muslims Certain individuals were following something close to the scientific method but it was missing a key part. Which is why the info was lost.

 

[Subduction Zone]

pathetic ad hominem

Not at all. Now you have only demonstrated that you do not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.

It was a very properly descriptive phrase. That was all.

 

[LIIA]

An article that overstates a person's work is not a refutation. Are you referring to the article that was not even peer reviewed again?

Pathetic. The article is not about refutation of the ToE it was about genetics in computational systems biology and was published by the Royal Society.