Some questions about evolution.

[rusra02]

Then why do you keep repeating the same lie over and over?

It is the ToE that is the big lie, endlessly droned by the media, academia, and the scientific establishment, foisted on young minds from elementary school onward.
It is a theory without a foundation and which the evidence does not support.. It is, in short, propaganda.
The comments of professor Irving Kristol are on point here: "Though this theory is usually taught as an estabished scientific truth it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact." (NY Times 9/30/86)

​

​

 

[jarofthoughts]

It is the ToE that is the big lie, endlessly droned by the media, academia, and the scientific establishment, foisted on young minds from elementary school onward.

That's a lot of people to involve in a conspiracy...
How do you reckon they keep everyone in line?

It is a theory without a foundation and which the evidence does not support.. It is, in short, propaganda.

Propaganda usually has an agenda.
What is the agenda behind promoting the Theory of Evolution you think?

The comments of professor Irving Kristol are on point here: "Though this theory is usually taught as an estabished scientific truth it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact." (NY Times 9/30/86)

Was he a trained biologist?
Or, maybe he was a trained scientist of some kind?
No?
Oh well...

To quote Pauli: ""Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"

 

[rusra02]

That's a lot of people to involve in a conspiracy...
How do you reckon they keep everyone in line?

They don't keep everyone in line. Watch "Expelled". But they do marginalize and ridicule those courageous enough say the emporer is naked.

Propaganda usually has an agenda.
What is the agenda behind promoting the Theory of Evolution you think?

I believe many scientists and others are sincere in their belief in the ToE, but certainly not all. Many display a commitment to materialism and an anti-God, atheistic mind set. If there is no God, we can do pretty much what we want and call it "survival of the fittest". Or do you claim scientists have no biases? Then there's all that fame and fortune for scientific superstars. (Not that any scientist would be swayed by that, for goodness sake.)
However, the Bible provides a deeper answer to that question: "So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth...Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time." (Revelation 12:9,12)
It suits the Devil's purpose very well to have people believe there is no need for God, and that all life just sprang into existence without God.


Was he a trained biologist?
Or, maybe he was a trained scientist of some kind?
No?
Oh well...

Typical statement revealing the arrogance of the ToE priesthood. How dare someone, not trained by us to swallow the koolaid, question what we do?
To quote Pauli: ""Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"

Responses are in blue.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Responses are in blue.

You really need to learn how to use the quote function mate...

They don't keep everyone in line. Watch "Expelled". But they do marginalize and ridicule those courageous enough say the emporer is naked.

I've seen Expelled thank you.
And I could personally refute each and every argument made by the Creationists/ID proponents in that hogwash.
And I'm not even a scientist...

I believe many scientists and others are sincere in their belief in the ToE, but certainly not all. Many display a commitment to materialism and an anti-God, atheistic mind set. If there is no God, we can do pretty much what we want and call it "survival of the fittest". Or do you claim scientists have no biases? Then there's all that fame and fortune for scientific superstars. (Not that any scientist would be swayed by that, for goodness sake.)

God is on par with faeries.
Both have absolutely no evidence in favour of their existence.
And that's the long and the short of it.

Typical statement revealing the arrogance of the ToE priesthood. How dare someone, not trained by us to swallow the koolaid, question what we do?

You missed the last sentence.
He is, also, wrong.

 

[McBell]

It is the ToE that is the big lie, endlessly droned by the media, academia, and the scientific establishment, foisted on young minds from elementary school onward.
It is a theory without a foundation and which the evidence does not support.. It is, in short, propaganda.
The comments of professor Irving Kristol are on point here: "Though this theory is usually taught as an estabished scientific truth it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact." (NY Times 9/30/86)

So you are more interested in proudly waving your hypocrisy by continuing to repeat your favourite lie than you are in learning the truth?

One wonders if your chosen deity really supports such dishonesty.

 

[johnhanks]

I believe many scientists and others are sincere in their belief in the ToE, but certainly not all. Many display a commitment to materialism and an anti-God, atheistic mind set.

Enough, in your view, to induce them to pretend ToE is true when they know it to be false? I've asked you this before I know, and have scant hope of receiving a reply this time, but when exactly in a young biologist's career does this switch from idealism to cynicism occur?

If there is no God, we can do pretty much what we want and call it "survival of the fittest".

On the other hand, if we believe there is a god and he's on our side, we can do pretty much what we want and call it "god's will". Much of the Old Testament bears horrible testimony to this.

Or do you claim scientists have no biases? Then there's all that fame and fortune for scientific superstars.

Again, I've put this to you before with no response, but we'll try again. How much more fame and fortune await the whistle-blower - the guy with the courage to step forward and lay bare the lies and mendacity of the evolutionist conspiracy?

 

[johnhanks]

It is the ToE that is the big lie, endlessly droned by the media, academia, and the scientific establishment, foisted on young minds from elementary school onward.
It is a theory without a foundation and which the evidence does not support.. It is, in short, propaganda.
The comments of professor Irving Kristol are on point here:...

Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neoconservatism"

On point? How was this man in any way qualified to pass judgement on the theory of evolution?

 

[outhouse]

Many display a commitment to materialism and an anti-God, atheistic mind set

This is your severe emotional bias and severe lack of education on the subject at hand talking.


science is not anti-theist. It is theist who are anti science because the truth hurts.



there is no debate about evolution at all. you can either progress foward with your knowledge and the truth. or remain in denial holding on to biased ideas most religions have let go of in favor of advancement in knowledge

 

[Valjean]

Expelled is propaganda, Rusra, Like Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's full of half-thrths and outright lies. You can find a dozen, point-by-point- refutations on YouTube, should you care to look.

Many scientists are atheists, but few are anti God any more than they're anti Zeus or anti tooth fairy.

You seem to have a skewed view of atheist ethics.
Atheists generally have a more sophisticated morality than do most Christians. Unlike theists, who cherry-pick moral points from ancient writings and use them as a crutch, Atheists think about right and wrong and develop a strong, internalized moral code; a code that actually fits today's culture and which isn't so easily kicked out from under them as the theist's precarious crutch.

A scientist does have his biases, just like anyone else, but the beauty of the scientific method is that bias shouldn't affect the final outcome. One of the steps in the mechanism is attempting to disprove your own theorem and inviting all other scientists to do the same.

Scientists continually question their beliefs, Rusra, and frequently modify them as new facts accumulate.
Christianity never comes up with any new facts, and it's doctrines aren't falsifiable and, therefore, aren't testable.
In science such a state of affairs would be seen as problematic.

It's the theists who have the agenda and the need to defend their doctrines against the onslaught of facts or reason.
Perhaps you should question your beliefs, Rusra, and not just blindly defend them by spouting nonsense about what you seem to think is some kind of competing religion.

 

[Alceste]

You must have a superior intellect to know what I have or have not examined, especially without asking me.

It's a reasonable assumption, since you've yet to provide a single source for your opinion apart from JW literature and the movie Expelled, and so far failed to produce any research or relevant commentary from working biologists to back up your argument.

 

[cottage]

It is the ToE that is the big lie, endlessly droned by the media, academia, and the scientific establishment, foisted on young minds from elementary school onward.
It is a theory without a foundation and which the evidence does not support.. It is, in short, propaganda.
The comments of professor Irving Kristol are on point here: "Though this theory is usually taught as an estabished scientific truth it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact." (NY Times 9/30/86)

With respect both you and the writer you quote are missing the real point by a mile. We can call Evolution a 'biological hypothesis' or a scientific fact, but whatever appellation we use, and no matter how committed its advocates, the theory remains subject to change and aspects of it may be improved or even rejected. The difference then is that no scientist can claim certainty, unlike the religious dogmatists who make claims to certain truth while being unable or unwilling to demonstrate the 'truth' of what they claim. The business of science hinges on probability, not articles of faith. Whatever a scientist believes can be wrong. The mystic or religionist can never make such an admission.

 

[rusra02]

Abiogenesis doesn't claim that living bacterium formed by "random changes", therefore his calculation is meaningless. Chemicals and compounds, such as the proteins required for life to develop, do not develop "randomly". They, like everything else, are subject to and influenced by the laws of the universe.

Look up statistical thermodynamics if you're interested in learning more.

Where did the laws of the universe come from?

 

[Photonic]

Where did the laws of the universe come from?

Instead of changing the topic again to avoid being wrong, why don't you respectfully address his statement?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Where did the laws of the universe come from?

Don't change the subject. Admit that your source is wrong.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is the ToE that is the big lie, endlessly droned by the media, academia, and the scientific establishment, foisted on young minds from elementary school onward.
It is a theory without a foundation and which the evidence does not support.. It is, in short, propaganda.
The comments of professor Irving Kristol are on point here: "Though this theory is usually taught as an estabished scientific truth it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact." (NY Times 9/30/86)

His words are of no importance given he wasn't educated in the relevant field to speak on biological evolution with any authority.

Irving Kristol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neoconservatism". As the founder, editor, and contributor to various magazines, he played an influential role in the intellectual and political culture of the last half-century; after his death he was described by The Daily Telegraph as being "perhaps the most consequential public intellectual of the latter half of the 20th century".......Kristol was born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of non-observant Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. He received his B.A. from the City College of New York in 1940.

Try again.....

 

[jarofthoughts]

Where did the laws of the universe come from?

Irrelevant when discussing ToE.
Address what the man said instead of trying to change the subject.

 

[outhouse]

Where did the laws of the universe come from?

LOL :biglaugh:


sidetracking like creationist do when logic and reason hit them like a brick wall


because we cant see beyond 13.6 billion years in the past, you want to sneak a god in the gaps of your knowledge.

luckily our gaps are a little smaller :yes:

 

[Matthew78]

Irrelevant when discussing ToE.
Address what the man said instead of trying to change the subject.

Methinks someone has been backed into a corner!

 

[Matthew78]

Where did the laws of the universe come from?

I'll close this escape hatch of yours so that you're forced to answer the post. You assume that the laws of the universe need a cause or began to exist at a definite moment in time. This is something that needs to be proved. You can say that God made the laws of the universe and if asked where God came from, you can try to reply with "God didn't begin to exist; he's eternal so he doesn't need an explanation for his existence". But evolutionists can argue that the universe never began to exist; it always existed from eternity past and so the laws of the universe are just as eternal as the universe itself!

Nice try! Now, answer the fellow!

 

[outhouse]

I'll close this escape hatch of yours so that you're forced to answer the post. You assume that the laws of the universe need a cause or began to exist at a definite moment in time. This is something that needs to be proved. You can say that God made the laws of the universe and if asked where God came from, you can try to reply with "God didn't begin to exist; he's eternal so he doesn't need an explanation for his existence". But evolutionists can argue that the universe never began to exist; it always existed from eternity past and so the laws of the universe are just as eternal as the universe itself!

Nice try! Now, answer the fellow!

lol good one

most people dont understand the material of he universe was in a different state but existed before our universe