Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Biologists, Chemists, Paleontologists Challenge Darwin's Unscientific Suggestion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Easy question for you: Why do you think evolution is wrong?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TeabagSalad View Post
      Easy question for you: Why do you think evolution is wrong?
      1. It is a tautology. It offers NOTHING but circular reasoning. They're fit because they survive. They're surviving because they're fit.
      2. The Magic Wand of "Selection" is meaningless. It's fast, it's slow, it's whatever the latest theorist wants it to be.
      3. Fossil evidence doesn't support evolution in the sense of development from a single-cell organism to mammals to humans.
      4. The mind-numbing complexity of DNA and protein synthesis eludes biochemists today who cannot synthesize large polypeptides, even after we have resolved their structure and folding.
      How is it possible that they made themselves, from trial and error, when random mutations are overwhelmingly useless or destructive? Non-directional Magic Wand of Selection can't begin to explain how eyes and ears were designed, much less the information and its coding in DNA and RNA.
      5. I deeply resent how militant Darwin's followers are, how anti-scientific they conduct themselves, hatefully, condescendingly, maliciously, all the while PROCLAIMING themselves to be intellectually superior. This is insecurity writ very large, and it is reprehensible, as shown by the Hater In Chief of these pages.

      "Elections have consequences. We won. You lost. Get used to it." - Barack Obama, 2009
      Hillary is corrupt, unlikable, poorly-qualified, terrible track record, but she has money and a vagina, and that's good enough for most liberals. - William L.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by RenaissanceMan View Post

        1. It is a tautology. It offers NOTHING but circular reasoning. They're fit because they survive. They're surviving because they're fit.
        2. The Magic Wand of "Selection" is meaningless. It's fast, it's slow, it's whatever the latest theorist wants it to be.
        3. Fossil evidence doesn't support evolution in the sense of development from a single-cell organism to mammals to humans.
        4. The mind-numbing complexity of DNA and protein synthesis eludes biochemists today who cannot synthesize large polypeptides, even after we have resolved their structure and folding.
        How is it possible that they made themselves, from trial and error, when random mutations are overwhelmingly useless or destructive? Non-directional Magic Wand of Selection can't begin to explain how eyes and ears were designed, much less the information and its coding in DNA and RNA.
        5. I deeply resent how militant Darwin's followers are, how anti-scientific they conduct themselves, hatefully, condescendingly, maliciously, all the while PROCLAIMING themselves to be intellectually superior. This is insecurity writ very large, and it is reprehensible, as shown by the Hater In Chief of these pages.
        1. False. You are not even considering mechanisms such as mutations.
        2. False. NS is not up to the "latest theorist".
        If you think that is meaningless, consider the multitude of varying interpretations of most of the bible verses. Now that is meaningless.
        3. Your ignorance is astounding.
        4. Your personal incredulity and lack of the necessary knowledge in no way nullifies evolutionary theory.
        5. If your sensitivities are being assaulted, I have a solution for you - don't come here.
        With all the conflicting religious beliefs in the world, they can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
        Herb Silverman.

        Comment


        • #19


          Originally posted by RenaissanceMan View Post

          1. It is a tautology. It offers NOTHING but circular reasoning. They're fit because they survive. They're surviving because they're fit.
          FAIL. "Fittest" aren't defined as those who survive and reproduce. Fittest are defined as those with a higher probability of surviving to reproduce. The fittest don't always live to reproduce, the less fit don't always die before reproducing, but on average across the whole population that is what happens.

          2. The Magic Wand of "Selection" is meaningless. It's fast, it's slow, it's whatever the latest theorist wants it to be.
          FAIL. Selection is part of a feedback process that tracks changes in the environment. It the environment is stable new selection is minimal. it the environment is changing rapidly selection occurs rapidly. if the environment changes are too rapid or too severe for the population to keep up, it goes extinct.


          3. Fossil evidence doesn't support evolution in the sense of development from a single-cell organism to mammals to humans.
          FAIL. The only piece we don't have conclusive fossil evidence for is the transition from unicellular to multicellular. Everything else is a lock.

          4. The mind-numbing complexity of DNA and protein synthesis eludes biochemists today who cannot synthesize large polypeptides, even after we have resolved their structure and folding.
          FAIL. Argument from ignorance. We can't build our own star either but that doesn't mean we don't understand how nuclear fission and fusion work.

          How is it possible that they made themselves, from trial and error, when random mutations are overwhelmingly useless or destructive?
          FAIL. They're not. The large majority of mutations are neutral WRT reproductive fitness. The deleterious ones tend to get weeded out, the beneficial ones tend to accumulate. That's Biology 101

          Non-directional Magic Wand of Selection can't begin to explain how eyes and ears were designed, much less the information and its coding in DNA and RNA.
          FAIL. Yes, it can. the explanation has been accepted by science for over 150 years.

          5. I deeply resent how militant Darwin's followers are, how anti-scientific they conduct themselves, hatefully, condescendingly, maliciously, all the while PROCLAIMING themselves to be intellectually superior. This is insecurity writ very large, and it is reprehensible, as shown by the Hater In Chief of these pages.
          Industrial strength projection.
          Last edited by Tim H; 07-16-18, 11:59 PM.
          "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by aussiedave View Post
            1. False. You are not even considering mechanisms such as mutations.
            2. False. NS is not up to the "latest theorist".
            If you think that is meaningless, consider the multitude of varying interpretations of most of the bible verses. Now that is meaningless.
            3. Your ignorance is astounding.
            4. Your personal incredulity and lack of the necessary knowledge in no way nullifies evolutionary theory.
            5. If your sensitivities are being assaulted, I have a solution for you - don't come here.
            If you were remotely as well read as you pretend to be, you would never make such statements.

            You bring up the bible (sic) when it is not germane.
            Your pretension and insecurity are on display.
            Don't tell me where to go.


            "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

            A brilliant analysis exposing atheist Richard Dawkins' ignorance and lies:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH8dcjKDH44
            "Elections have consequences. We won. You lost. Get used to it." - Barack Obama, 2009
            Hillary is corrupt, unlikable, poorly-qualified, terrible track record, but she has money and a vagina, and that's good enough for most liberals. - William L.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RenaissanceMan View Post

              If you were remotely as well read as you pretend to be, you would never make such statements.
              But he's correct and your ignorant layman's errors were already dealt with above.

              Fortunately no one has ever mistaken you for someone well read in the biological sciences, right?
              "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by RenaissanceMan View Post

                If you were remotely as well read as you pretend to be, you would never make such statements.

                You bring up the bible (sic) when it is not germane.
                Your pretension and insecurity are on display.
                Don't tell me where to go.


                "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

                A brilliant analysis exposing atheist Richard Dawkins' ignorance and lies:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH8dcjKDH44
                Mr. Chain was no doubt an intelligent man. He was however, a theist. You have poisoned the well. Btw, he made that little statement in 1971.
                Give us a summation of the video. I have no intentions of watching it.
                With all the conflicting religious beliefs in the world, they can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
                Herb Silverman.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by RenaissanceMan View Post

                  1. It is a tautology. It offers NOTHING but circular reasoning. They're fit because they survive. They're surviving because they're fit.
                  2. The Magic Wand of "Selection" is meaningless. It's fast, it's slow, it's whatever the latest theorist wants it to be.
                  3. Fossil evidence doesn't support evolution in the sense of development from a single-cell organism to mammals to humans.
                  4. The mind-numbing complexity of DNA and protein synthesis eludes biochemists today who cannot synthesize large polypeptides, even after we have resolved their structure and folding.
                  How is it possible that they made themselves, from trial and error, when random mutations are overwhelmingly useless or destructive? Non-directional Magic Wand of Selection can't begin to explain how eyes and ears were designed, much less the information and its coding in DNA and RNA.
                  5. I deeply resent how militant Darwin's followers are, how anti-scientific they conduct themselves, hatefully, condescendingly, maliciously, all the while PROCLAIMING themselves to be intellectually superior. This is insecurity writ very large, and it is reprehensible, as shown by the Hater In Chief of these pages.
                  We conclude we are intellectually superior on this topic because of the miserable understanding you have on this topic. You managed to get everything wrong in this post.
                  "The dolphin would be its shape if it was just farming carrots." - Robert Byers

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by aussiedave View Post
                    Mr. Chain was no doubt an intelligent man. He was however, a theist. You have poisoned the well. Btw, he made that little statement in 1971.
                    Give us a summation of the video. I have no intentions of watching it.
                    Richard Dawkins claims in this video that the purpose of human DNA is to make copies of human DNA. He may have been onto something. It is obvious that the DNA of apes is designed to make copies of DNA of apes, not humans. Where did Richard Dawkins go wrong from there?
                    I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                    If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                    For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by marke View Post

                      Richard Dawkins claims in this video that the purpose of human DNA is to make copies of human DNA. He may have been onto something. It is obvious that the DNA of apes is designed to make copies of DNA of apes, not humans. Where did Richard Dawkins go wrong from there?
                      And since humans are apes....
                      When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by D Laurier View Post

                        And since humans are apes....
                        Speak for yourself and for democrat leaders and evolutionist baboons in America.
                        I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                        If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                        For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by marke View Post

                          Speak for yourself and for democrat leaders and evolutionist baboons in America.
                          If humans are not apes, what are we?
                          Heres a clue, we are not your imaginary boogiemen.
                          When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by marke View Post

                            Richard Dawkins claims in this video that the purpose of human DNA is to make copies of human DNA. He may have been onto something. It is obvious that the DNA of apes is designed to make copies of DNA of apes, not humans. Where did Richard Dawkins go wrong from there?
                            Not interested.
                            DNA will obviously contruct whatever instructions it contains.
                            What you have to keep in mind here marke is that mutations can happen to any DNA - whatever the species.

                            With all the conflicting religious beliefs in the world, they can’t all be right. But they can all be wrong.
                            Herb Silverman.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by D Laurier View Post

                              If humans are not apes, what are we?
                              Heres a clue, we are not your imaginary boogiemen.
                              Have you ever tried to conduct reasonable discussions with an ape?
                              I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                              If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                              For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by marke View Post

                                Have you ever tried to conduct reasonable discussions with an ape?
                                I have.

                                So if humans are not apes... what are we?
                                When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X