apothanein kerdos Posted January 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2006 Thats probably the most stupid thing (not counting Arthurs last comment) that i've read all day. Care to back that up with some scientific prove? And not the kind you find on a "Christian Scientist" website. I'm talking proper medical/biological journal articles agreeing with that propostion. Surprise, surprise, the same old ad hominem: real scientists are not determined by intelligence or expertise, or even by what degrees they hold from accredited universities. No, it's determined by IDEOLOGY! That's right folks, if you reject the theory known as "a fairy tale for adults", you must not be a real scientist. And why don't many non-evos get published in the PC journals? Because they are blacklisted. It's a racket run by the evos, and they don't want anyone spoiling their party. And what makes a website "proper" in their eyes? You guessed it-- IDEOLOGY, that is to say, RELIGION. Give it up evos, we know your game. Logical fallacies and a monopoly on all public discussion is all you've got. We get evo rammed down our throats in all the schools, the media, even entertainment. This is nothing less than complete censorship. Again, I urge you to check out the other threads where this has already been hashed out. Exactly. And to Inti....which came first, the sperm or the egg? That's what leonard is getting at...it's a highly complex way of reproduction that, if evolved over time, would not have allowed for the reproduction (or at least successful and progressive) of the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yomotalking Posted January 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 154 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,838 Content Per Day: 0.40 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/29/1991 Share Posted January 5, 2006 This is a very long read, but scientificly explains how evolution is not possible. http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/4-2/lloyd-olson-paper.htm Ohh yet another post on worthy that only consists of someone elses article and a statement on how whatever the article says is true. Sorry to disappoint you but there are thousands of studies that prove evolution happens, that one article does nothing to change that. And thousands of articles saying evolution is as false as an amobeba managing to eat a 20,000, ft lollipop in 3 seconds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hebrews_beauty Posted January 5, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 232 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/14/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2006 The two are NOT mutually exclusive. My thoughts exactly. One can believe in evolution, and also believe in creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted January 5, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2006 Please tell me what possible motivation a scientist or a group of scientists could have to propegate a false theory? Inherent humanistic and naturalistic philosophy that has permiated their central worldview. The underlying problem with Darwinian evolution is that it grew out of a naturalistic view of the universe. There were athiests long before the theory of evolution, they were merely called naturalist. This naturalistic thought gave birth to Darwinian evolution. Scientists to this day have been raised, trained, educated, and worked under this philosophy. It's not that they are part of a vast conspiracy; it's that they're all part of a flawed worldview. If evidence is shown that a Deity can exist then the central part of their worldview (that there is no need for a higher intelligence) is challenge and proven false. This is something that any human, on the most basic level, struggles with letting go (the central component of a worldview). Thus instead of giving a legitimate wording to the evidence that contradicts their worldview, they laugh it off and ridicule it without offering a viable alternative...or use argumentation that actually lend credit to the contradictory position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inti Posted January 5, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 132 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2006 Surprise, surprise, the same old ad hominem: real scientists are not determined by intelligence or expertise, or even by what degrees they hold from accredited universities. No, it's determined by IDEOLOGY! That's right folks, if you reject the theory known as "a fairy tale for adults", you must not be a real scientist. And why don't many non-evos get published in the PC journals? Because they are blacklisted. It's a racket run by the evos, and they don't want anyone spoiling their party. And what makes a website "proper" in their eyes? You guessed it-- IDEOLOGY, that is to say, RELIGION. Give it up evos, we know your game. Logical fallacies and a monopoly on all public discussion is all you've got. We get evo rammed down our throats in all the schools, the media, even entertainment. This is nothing less than complete censorship. Again, I urge you to check out the other threads where this has already been hashed out. EDIT: Here's the other evo thread: Click Here No a real Scientist is one that is wholly impartial. Being a Christian and a scientist does not lead to impartiality. You cannot be objective if you believe in a conflicting "world view". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecco Posted January 5, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 163 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2006 Stu Pullen[9] provides the odds of generating a random amino acid string. He shows that if each of these amino acids has a 4/64 chance of being in the correct position, then the odds for creating a functional protein are (4/64)70 or 1 chance in 2 x 1084 tries or a probability of .5x10-85. For all practical purposes, the odds are zero. The above is a quote from the article referred to in the OP. It is typical of the entire article. A lot of nonsense that has been repudiated over and over and over. If aaronjm had taken the time to do a google search on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inti Posted January 5, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 132 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2006 Your own people disagree with you: I'm sorry but 5-6 unreferences quotes prove nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecco Posted January 6, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 163 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 6, 2006 2thepoint: Desparation, like conspiracy theories, is a two-way street. Evos (and you know I could get you quotes) have admitted that scientific facts do not prove evolution, and in fact largely disprove it, OK, I call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godsci Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) OK, I call Edited January 6, 2006 by godsci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godsci Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 This is a very long read, but scientificly explains how evolution is not possible. http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/4-2/lloyd-olson-paper.htm Ohh yet another post on worthy that only consists of someone elses article and a statement on how whatever the article says is true. Sorry to disappoint you but there are thousands of studies that prove evolution happens, that one article does nothing to change that. I find the absence of references (to these alleged thousands of articles) quite interesting... Would you agree that there is an element of Faith in Evolution? Wishing you Peace, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts