Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific honesty.

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:13:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

First of all, note the name of the website. Doesn't sound very unbiased.

Second, the page uses the word 'evolutionist'. Let that be an indicator on how literate these people are.

Third, just because there were a few hoaxes in no way invalidates the rest of the massive amounts of evidence.

Fourth, although I agree with the last statement("Scientists are humans too - they make mistakes as well"), doesn't it perhaps occur to some of you that maybe, just maybe, these creationists are actually the ones that are wrong? After all, this isn't just one scientist making a claim - it's more than 90% of the whole community.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:16:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:13:02 AM, KafkaF wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

First of all, note the name of the website. Doesn't sound very unbiased.

Second, the page uses the word 'evolutionist'. Let that be an indicator on how literate these people are.

Third, just because there were a few hoaxes in no way invalidates the rest of the massive amounts of evidence.

Such as? There is no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Evolution is a philosophy; not a science. Their story is constantly changing. Most scientists can't even agree on a single version of evolution. That's because it never happened.

Fourth, although I agree with the last statement("Scientists are humans too - they make mistakes as well"), doesn't it perhaps occur to some of you that maybe, just maybe, these creationists are actually the ones that are wrong? After all, this isn't just one scientist making a claim - it's more than 90% of the whole community.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:19:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Good point^^^. Constantly declaring that humans can be wrong about things conveniently sidesteps the fact that creationists are humans... who can be wrong about things.

And in this case, it isn't just a mere possibility; their wrong stance has been well refuted for over a century now. That is the power of denial for you...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:20:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The "good point" comment was directed to KafkaF. Geez, I wish there were an edit function here!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:23:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:16:59 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:13:02 AM, KafkaF wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

First of all, note the name of the website. Doesn't sound very unbiased.

Second, the page uses the word 'evolutionist'. Let that be an indicator on how literate these people are.

Third, just because there were a few hoaxes in no way invalidates the rest of the massive amounts of evidence.

Such as? There is no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Other members on this forum have already showed you large amounts of evidence. Your decision to just ignore it is your choice - however that doesn't make the evidence any less valid.

Evolution is a philosophy; not a science.

And how come all of a sudden you get to decide what science is and what science isn't?

Their story is constantly changing. Most scientists can't even agree on a single version of evolution.

That's how science works - you take old ideas and constantly change and refine them to match new evidence or scrap them completely if they conflict with said evidence. Science is not religion - nothing is written permanently on a piece of paper.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:44:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:23:04 AM, KafkaF wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:16:59 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:13:02 AM, KafkaF wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

First of all, note the name of the website. Doesn't sound very unbiased.

Second, the page uses the word 'evolutionist'. Let that be an indicator on how literate these people are.

Third, just because there were a few hoaxes in no way invalidates the rest of the massive amounts of evidence.

Such as? There is no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Other members on this forum have already showed you large amounts of evidence. Your decision to just ignore it is your choice - however that doesn't make the evidence any less valid.

And others have refuted that evidence, yet you ignore that.

Evolution is a philosophy; not a science.

And how come all of a sudden you get to decide what science is and what science isn't?

Just look at how they present their findings. 'We believe that...". "It's possible that..." Evolution is nothing but an intellectual exercise. There is no conclusive evidence to support it's claims. That's why their story keeps changing, and why they can't even agree with each other. Because evolution never happened.

Their story is constantly changing. Most scientists can't even agree on a single version of evolution.

That's how science works - you take old ideas and constantly change and refine them to match new evidence or scrap them completely if they conflict with said evidence. Science is not religion - nothing is written permanently on a piece of paper.

My point exactly. They just don't know. Every theory they have come up with was wrong, then supplanted by a new theory. They haven't got a clue what really happened.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:23:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You are projecting your not having a clue onto scientists. They have countless clues.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:26:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

If you want to talk scientific honesty:

- most creationist websites claim that they will reject any evidence that doesn't agree with them.
- they repeatedly recycle arguments that they know are wrong, and know are straw men. Ray comfort lied about Darwins personal life to make him sound bitter against God, Keny hovind lied about pretty much everything.
- Creationists don't do science. They do politics, marketing campaigns and lawsuits to get their way.

And that's just the basics.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:27:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 11:26:23 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

If you want to talk scientific honesty:

- most creationist websites claim that they will reject any evidence that doesn't agree with them.
- they repeatedly recycle arguments that they know are wrong, and know are straw men. Ray comfort lied about Darwins personal life to make him sound bitter against God, Keny hovind lied about pretty much everything.
- Creationists don't do science. They do politics, marketing campaigns and lawsuits to get their way.

And that's just the basics.

Prove it.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:39:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 11:26:23 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

If you want to talk scientific honesty:

- most creationist websites claim that they will reject any evidence that doesn't agree with them.
- they repeatedly recycle arguments that they know are wrong, and know are straw men. Ray comfort lied about Darwins personal life to make him sound bitter against God, Keny hovind lied about pretty much everything.

Their search for Truth may have led them to their current faith, but now they are no longer searching for the truth. They are looking only for what supports their faith, and if that should conflict with reality, they are all too willing to blatantly lie-- to themselves as well as everyone else...

- Creationists don't do science. They do politics, marketing campaigns and lawsuits to get their way.

And that's just the basics.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:56:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 11:27:56 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:26:23 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

If you want to talk scientific honesty:

- most creationist websites claim that they will reject any evidence that doesn't agree with them.
- they repeatedly recycle arguments that they know are wrong, and know are straw men. Ray comfort lied about Darwins personal life to make him sound bitter against God, Keny hovind lied about pretty much everything.
- Creationists don't do science. They do politics, marketing campaigns and lawsuits to get their way.

And that's just the basics.

Prove it.

Prove it. Okay.

1.) AiG website:
https://answersingenesis.org...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

2.) "Evolution is just a theory", "Against the 2nd Law of thermodynamics", and many others are continually used, and have been used by prominent creationists. Almost ALL prominent claim to understand evolution, yet claim state things like "The theory we came from rocks", or "Lightening striking a mud puddle", which should be known are a) not evolution or b) not what the science says indicating a known straw men, or they are lying about their understanding of evolution. And hey, Hovind didn't have a valid PhD and claimed he did, he claimed he taught highschool biology and didn't know the difference between a gene, chromosome and base pair, and explained chromosome recombination completely incorrectly. Oh, and he is in jail for fraud; and lied in the court by crying saying "If it's the money you want, I'll give you the money", then five minutes later calling his son to start transferring assets like cars into his sons name to avoid liability on those items.

3.) there are almost no peer reviewed scientific journals; on the other hand you have the wedge strategy, dover trial (among others!), attempts in texas to use politics to insert text damaging on evolution through the political review process. Unless you can cite significant, legitimate scientific activity (I can't prove a negative), all I can show is numerous examples of campaigns along these lines.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:20:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
^^^ Ha! That all you got?? ; )
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 1:43:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)

Science, at least evolutionary science, is biased. I always laugh when someone mentions peer reviewed discoveries for evolution. They are all atheists, so of course they're going to get the rubber stamp of approval. I won't even go into the witch hunts of anyone who disagrees with them. People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for disagreeing with the majority. That's not science. It's dogma.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:09:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 1:43:29 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)

Science, at least evolutionary science, is biased. I always laugh when someone mentions peer reviewed discoveries for evolution. They are all atheists, so of course they're going to get the rubber stamp of approval. I won't even go into the witch hunts of anyone who disagrees with them. People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for disagreeing with the majority. That's not science. It's dogma.

I think you are referring to the community of scientists, not science itself in your first sentence. Scientists are biased towards the scientific method. And, being only human, they are interested in gaining recognition and kudos for their work. There is a bias in that, hence the existence of peer review.

Merely declaring "They are all atheists" is an invalid point for two reasons: 1) they are not ALL atheists and 2) your claim is what is known as an "Ad Hominem fallacy."

As to people losing their jobs in the science field-- good!! Who wants a cosmologist who is a member of the Flat Earth Society? It is virtually the same regarding how fundamental the fact of evolution is to the biological sciences. Your claim just tells me that the science community is self-policing, and that is a good thing (for the science literate).

Take a look at Francis Collins-- he is a scientist who may surprise you...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Subutai
Posts: 3,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:21:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:16:59 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:13:02 AM, KafkaF wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

First of all, note the name of the website. Doesn't sound very unbiased.

Second, the page uses the word 'evolutionist'. Let that be an indicator on how literate these people are.

Third, just because there were a few hoaxes in no way invalidates the rest of the massive amounts of evidence.

Such as? There is no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Rofl. Dude, have you even looked?
Evolution is a philosophy; not a science. Their story is constantly changing.

Implying that philosophy is worthless, and making the jump that evolution is only philosophy with no evidence whatsoever.
Most scientists can't even agree on a single version of evolution.

So science is static and everyone has to believe one set theory?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:22:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 2:09:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:43:29 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)

Science, at least evolutionary science, is biased. I always laugh when someone mentions peer reviewed discoveries for evolution. They are all atheists, so of course they're going to get the rubber stamp of approval. I won't even go into the witch hunts of anyone who disagrees with them. People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for disagreeing with the majority. That's not science. It's dogma.

I think you are referring to the community of scientists, not science itself in your first sentence. Scientists are biased towards the scientific method. And, being only human, they are interested in gaining recognition and kudos for their work. There is a bias in that, hence the existence of peer review.

Merely declaring "They are all atheists" is an invalid point for two reasons: 1) they are not ALL atheists and 2) your claim is what is known as an "Ad Hominem fallacy."

As to people losing their jobs in the science field-- good!! Who wants a cosmologist who is a member of the Flat Earth Society? It is virtually the same regarding how fundamental the fact of evolution is to the biological sciences. Your claim just tells me that the science community is self-policing, and that is a good thing (for the science literate).

Take a look at Francis Collins-- he is a scientist who may surprise you...

So, you think it's a good thing that one can lose their job simply for disagreeing with evolution, even though it's not a scientific fact? Seriously?
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:25:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you reread what I wrote, you will see that I referred to it as a fundamental fact of the biological sciences-- which it is... seriously.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:26:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 2:21:36 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:16:59 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:13:02 AM, KafkaF wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

First of all, note the name of the website. Doesn't sound very unbiased.

Second, the page uses the word 'evolutionist'. Let that be an indicator on how literate these people are.

Third, just because there were a few hoaxes in no way invalidates the rest of the massive amounts of evidence.

Such as? There is no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Rofl. Dude, have you even looked?

I have looked. I'm still looking. I have not seen one piece of evidence that confirms that evolution is even possible.

Evolution is a philosophy; not a science. Their story is constantly changing.

Implying that philosophy is worthless, and making the jump that evolution is only philosophy with no evidence whatsoever.

I never said that. What evolution is, is a bunch of wishful thinking masquerading as science.

Most scientists can't even agree on a single version of evolution.

So science is static and everyone has to believe one set theory?

No. But it would be nice if they actually had some evidence for what they believe in. The reason that there are so many theories for evolution is the simple fact that it never happened.
Subutai
Posts: 3,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:33:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 2:26:08 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:21:36 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:16:59 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:13:02 AM, KafkaF wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

First of all, note the name of the website. Doesn't sound very unbiased.

Second, the page uses the word 'evolutionist'. Let that be an indicator on how literate these people are.

Third, just because there were a few hoaxes in no way invalidates the rest of the massive amounts of evidence.

Such as? There is no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Rofl. Dude, have you even looked?

I have looked. I'm still looking. I have not seen one piece of evidence that confirms that evolution is even possible.


You clearly haven't been looking very hard. The nested hierarchy of species seems to be the strongest, as it incorporates a number of direct observations into a model that can only be explained by evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...
Evolution is a philosophy; not a science. Their story is constantly changing.

Implying that philosophy is worthless, and making the jump that evolution is only philosophy with no evidence whatsoever.

I never said that. What evolution is, is a bunch of wishful thinking masquerading as science.


And why is this? Also, where's the proof of this?
Most scientists can't even agree on a single version of evolution.

So science is static and everyone has to believe one set theory?

No. But it would be nice if they actually had some evidence for what they believe in. The reason that there are so many theories for evolution is the simple fact that it never happened.

So quantum mechanics is invalid simply because there are a plethora of interpretations of it? Everyone, even on the minutest of levels, has an individual opinion, and scientific theories are never proven through consensus.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 3:04:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 2:22:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:09:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:43:29 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)

Science, at least evolutionary science, is biased. I always laugh when someone mentions peer reviewed discoveries for evolution. They are all atheists, so of course they're going to get the rubber stamp of approval. I won't even go into the witch hunts of anyone who disagrees with them. People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for disagreeing with the majority. That's not science. It's dogma.

I think you are referring to the community of scientists, not science itself in your first sentence. Scientists are biased towards the scientific method. And, being only human, they are interested in gaining recognition and kudos for their work. There is a bias in that, hence the existence of peer review.

Merely declaring "They are all atheists" is an invalid point for two reasons: 1) they are not ALL atheists and 2) your claim is what is known as an "Ad Hominem fallacy."

As to people losing their jobs in the science field-- good!! Who wants a cosmologist who is a member of the Flat Earth Society? It is virtually the same regarding how fundamental the fact of evolution is to the biological sciences. Your claim just tells me that the science community is self-policing, and that is a good thing (for the science literate).

Take a look at Francis Collins-- he is a scientist who may surprise you...

So, you think it's a good thing that one can lose their job simply for disagreeing with evolution, even though it's not a scientific fact? Seriously?

Anyone that disagrees with the statement "evolution happens" is being highly unscientific, and therefore it is understandable that the mentioned person gets fired. Would you give a job to a physicist that states that gravity does not exist? I wouldn't.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 4:39:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 3:04:50 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:22:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:09:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:43:29 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)

Science, at least evolutionary science, is biased. I always laugh when someone mentions peer reviewed discoveries for evolution. They are all atheists, so of course they're going to get the rubber stamp of approval. I won't even go into the witch hunts of anyone who disagrees with them. People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for disagreeing with the majority. That's not science. It's dogma.

I think you are referring to the community of scientists, not science itself in your first sentence. Scientists are biased towards the scientific method. And, being only human, they are interested in gaining recognition and kudos for their work. There is a bias in that, hence the existence of peer review.

Merely declaring "They are all atheists" is an invalid point for two reasons: 1) they are not ALL atheists and 2) your claim is what is known as an "Ad Hominem fallacy."

As to people losing their jobs in the science field-- good!! Who wants a cosmologist who is a member of the Flat Earth Society? It is virtually the same regarding how fundamental the fact of evolution is to the biological sciences. Your claim just tells me that the science community is self-policing, and that is a good thing (for the science literate).

Take a look at Francis Collins-- he is a scientist who may surprise you...

So, you think it's a good thing that one can lose their job simply for disagreeing with evolution, even though it's not a scientific fact? Seriously?

Anyone that disagrees with the statement "evolution happens" is being highly unscientific, and therefore it is understandable that the mentioned person gets fired. Would you give a job to a physicist that states that gravity does not exist? I wouldn't.

You seem to think that evolution, and by that I mean the theory that all life descended from a common ancestor, is a fact. This is not true. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim, and much that discredits it. By your reasoning, we should have fired Einstein. I guess people like you would also have imprisoned Galileo for heresy. Your arguments have no merit at all. In fact, they show just how closed minded and intolerant you are.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 4:48:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 4:39:44 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 3:04:50 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:22:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:09:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:43:29 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)

Science, at least evolutionary science, is biased. I always laugh when someone mentions peer reviewed discoveries for evolution. They are all atheists, so of course they're going to get the rubber stamp of approval. I won't even go into the witch hunts of anyone who disagrees with them. People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for disagreeing with the majority. That's not science. It's dogma.

I think you are referring to the community of scientists, not science itself in your first sentence. Scientists are biased towards the scientific method. And, being only human, they are interested in gaining recognition and kudos for their work. There is a bias in that, hence the existence of peer review.

Merely declaring "They are all atheists" is an invalid point for two reasons: 1) they are not ALL atheists and 2) your claim is what is known as an "Ad Hominem fallacy."

As to people losing their jobs in the science field-- good!! Who wants a cosmologist who is a member of the Flat Earth Society? It is virtually the same regarding how fundamental the fact of evolution is to the biological sciences. Your claim just tells me that the science community is self-policing, and that is a good thing (for the science literate).

Take a look at Francis Collins-- he is a scientist who may surprise you...

So, you think it's a good thing that one can lose their job simply for disagreeing with evolution, even though it's not a scientific fact? Seriously?

Anyone that disagrees with the statement "evolution happens" is being highly unscientific, and therefore it is understandable that the mentioned person gets fired. Would you give a job to a physicist that states that gravity does not exist? I wouldn't.

You seem to think that evolution, and by that I mean the theory that all life descended from a common ancestor, is a fact. This is not true. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim, and much that discredits it. By your reasoning, we should have fired Einstein. I guess people like you would also have imprisoned Galileo for heresy. Your arguments have no merit at all. In fact, they show just how closed minded and intolerant you are.

You need to understand that you simply are part of that group of people that would never pass a job interview because of his ignorance of elementary science.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 4:50:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:44:36 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:23:04 AM, KafkaF wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:16:59 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:13:02 AM, KafkaF wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

First of all, note the name of the website. Doesn't sound very unbiased.

Second, the page uses the word 'evolutionist'. Let that be an indicator on how literate these people are.

Third, just because there were a few hoaxes in no way invalidates the rest of the massive amounts of evidence.

Such as? There is no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Other members on this forum have already showed you large amounts of evidence. Your decision to just ignore it is your choice - however that doesn't make the evidence any less valid.

And others have refuted that evidence, yet you ignore that.

You have not refuted the evidence I presented that shows documented cases of speciation.

In case you did not see them, let me present them once more:

http://phylointelligence.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evolution is a philosophy; not a science.

And how come all of a sudden you get to decide what science is and what science isn't?

Just look at how they present their findings. 'We believe that...". "It's possible that..." Evolution is nothing but an intellectual exercise. There is no conclusive evidence to support it's claims. That's why their story keeps changing, and why they can't even agree with each other. Because evolution never happened.

Their story is constantly changing. Most scientists can't even agree on a single version of evolution.

That's how science works - you take old ideas and constantly change and refine them to match new evidence or scrap them completely if they conflict with said evidence. Science is not religion - nothing is written permanently on a piece of paper.

My point exactly. They just don't know. Every theory they have come up with was wrong, then supplanted by a new theory. They haven't got a clue what really happened.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 4:54:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Again, you really should take a look at Francis Collins: one of the mappers of the human genome, accomplished scientist, acknowledges evolution as FACT, and... wait for it... Evangelical Christian.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 4:59:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 4:48:56 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 4:39:44 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 3:04:50 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:22:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:09:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:43:29 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)

Science, at least evolutionary science, is biased. I always laugh when someone mentions peer reviewed discoveries for evolution. They are all atheists, so of course they're going to get the rubber stamp of approval. I won't even go into the witch hunts of anyone who disagrees with them. People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for disagreeing with the majority. That's not science. It's dogma.

I think you are referring to the community of scientists, not science itself in your first sentence. Scientists are biased towards the scientific method. And, being only human, they are interested in gaining recognition and kudos for their work. There is a bias in that, hence the existence of peer review.

Merely declaring "They are all atheists" is an invalid point for two reasons: 1) they are not ALL atheists and 2) your claim is what is known as an "Ad Hominem fallacy."

As to people losing their jobs in the science field-- good!! Who wants a cosmologist who is a member of the Flat Earth Society? It is virtually the same regarding how fundamental the fact of evolution is to the biological sciences. Your claim just tells me that the science community is self-policing, and that is a good thing (for the science literate).

Take a look at Francis Collins-- he is a scientist who may surprise you...

So, you think it's a good thing that one can lose their job simply for disagreeing with evolution, even though it's not a scientific fact? Seriously?

Anyone that disagrees with the statement "evolution happens" is being highly unscientific, and therefore it is understandable that the mentioned person gets fired. Would you give a job to a physicist that states that gravity does not exist? I wouldn't.

You seem to think that evolution, and by that I mean the theory that all life descended from a common ancestor, is a fact. This is not true. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim, and much that discredits it. By your reasoning, we should have fired Einstein. I guess people like you would also have imprisoned Galileo for heresy. Your arguments have no merit at all. In fact, they show just how closed minded and intolerant you are.

You need to understand that you simply are part of that group of people that would never pass a job interview because of his ignorance of elementary science.

I graduated high school and attended college. My grasp of science is just as good, if not better than yours. If you would like to discuss some REAL science, not evolution, I would be happy to oblige.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 5:05:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 4:39:44 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 3:04:50 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:22:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:09:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:43:29 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)

Science, at least evolutionary science, is biased. I always laugh when someone mentions peer reviewed discoveries for evolution. They are all atheists, so of course they're going to get the rubber stamp of approval. I won't even go into the witch hunts of anyone who disagrees with them. People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for disagreeing with the majority. That's not science. It's dogma.

I think you are referring to the community of scientists, not science itself in your first sentence. Scientists are biased towards the scientific method. And, being only human, they are interested in gaining recognition and kudos for their work. There is a bias in that, hence the existence of peer review.

Merely declaring "They are all atheists" is an invalid point for two reasons: 1) they are not ALL atheists and 2) your claim is what is known as an "Ad Hominem fallacy."

As to people losing their jobs in the science field-- good!! Who wants a cosmologist who is a member of the Flat Earth Society? It is virtually the same regarding how fundamental the fact of evolution is to the biological sciences. Your claim just tells me that the science community is self-policing, and that is a good thing (for the science literate).

Take a look at Francis Collins-- he is a scientist who may surprise you...

So, you think it's a good thing that one can lose their job simply for disagreeing with evolution, even though it's not a scientific fact? Seriously?

Anyone that disagrees with the statement "evolution happens" is being highly unscientific, and therefore it is understandable that the mentioned person gets fired. Would you give a job to a physicist that states that gravity does not exist? I wouldn't.

You seem to think that evolution, and by that I mean the theory that all life descended from a common ancestor, is a fact.

It's the only explanation that fits the evidence and has made stupendously strong predictions that are all true. It is the closest thing you can get to a fact that isn't actually a fact.

This is not true. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim, and much that discredits it.

Taxonomy is evidence for common descent as in violated nested heirsrchies are only produced by descent with modification and are the pattern that has to appear as a result. It is in violated by chronology, meaning the progression of the tree with time follows a clear progression of species from more basal to more modern. It is in violated by geography too, indicating location of phyla over time is consistent with species divergence. The existence of transitional forms that share basal traits and forms for more than one descendant species is a key evidence and prediction of common descent.

Attavisms, poor design, vestigiality and embryology all validate this concept too by showing features and progression that can only be explained by successive generations diverging and adapting over multiple flowering lines of descent.

And, most importantly all molecular evidence; all of it demonstrates common descent by showing a pattern of molecular differences, patterns in proteins, markers and ERvs between all organisms that can only be explained if they are all related through a sequence of successive divergence that matches exactly the tree of life.

There is no explanation, and no creationists ever does anything more than make bland excuses as to why these are the case!

By your reasoning, we should have fired Einstein. I guess people like you would also have imprisoned Galileo for heresy. Your arguments have no merit at all. In fact, they show just how closed minded and intolerant you are.

People who question legitimate aspects of evolution aren't fired.

Those that talk like you, who show zero understanding of how evolution works and simply have to lie, deliberately or through deliberate ignorance, are and should be fired.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 5:30:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 5:05:41 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 4:39:44 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 3:04:50 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:22:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 2:09:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:43:29 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/20/2014 10:03:11 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You might find this article interesting. Next time you here someone defend their position with 'Scientists say..." you might want to remember this.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

"Scientists say" is an appeal to authority, but most of the time we say such thing as a way of abbreviate: a scientist has discovered something and most of the scientific community has made sure that the discovery is real, therefore the data in question is not fake.

Of course the scientific community can be fooled, but that rarely happens, and successful counterfeitings decrease with time.

Scientists are rarely pleased by what other scientists say. History shows us that the scientific community is always eager to destroy new scientific theories in every possible way. This is frustrating to scientists with revolutionary ideas that are difficult to prove, but also very useful for humanity in general, as it ensures that the theories "accepted by the scientific community" are usually true.

The fact that today's scientists don't try to disprove evolution, is because saying to another scientist "evolution does not happen therefore Darwin theories are not true", is equal to saying "apples do not fall from trees and therefore Newtons' theories are not true". The statement is so stupid that no scientist would bother to do it. Instead, smart scientists accept evolution as a fact, but object to the main mechanisms that drive evolution (is the main mechanism natural selection? genetic drift? sexual selection? etc)

Science, at least evolutionary science, is biased. I always laugh when someone mentions peer reviewed discoveries for evolution. They are all atheists, so of course they're going to get the rubber stamp of approval. I won't even go into the witch hunts of anyone who disagrees with them. People have lost tenure, and even their jobs for disagreeing with the majority. That's not science. It's dogma.

I think you are referring to the community of scientists, not science itself in your first sentence. Scientists are biased towards the scientific method. And, being only human, they are interested in gaining recognition and kudos for their work. There is a bias in that, hence the existence of peer review.

Merely declaring "They are all atheists" is an invalid point for two reasons: 1) they are not ALL atheists and 2) your claim is what is known as an "Ad Hominem fallacy."

As to people losing their jobs in the science field-- good!! Who wants a cosmologist who is a member of the Flat Earth Society? It is virtually the same regarding how fundamental the fact of evolution is to the biological sciences. Your claim just tells me that the science community is self-policing, and that is a good thing (for the science literate).

Take a look at Francis Collins-- he is a scientist who may surprise you...

So, you think it's a good thing that one can lose their job simply for disagreeing with evolution, even though it's not a scientific fact? Seriously?

Anyone that disagrees with the statement "evolution happens" is being highly unscientific, and therefore it is understandable that the mentioned person gets fired. Would you give a job to a physicist that states that gravity does not exist? I wouldn't.

You seem to think that evolution, and by that I mean the theory that all life descended from a common ancestor, is a fact.

It's the only explanation that fits the evidence and has made stupendously strong predictions that are all true. It is the closest thing you can get to a fact that isn't actually a fact.

This is not true. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim, and much that discredits it.

Taxonomy is evidence for common descent as in violated nested heirsrchies are only produced by descent with modification and are the pattern that has to appear as a result. It is in violated by chronology, meaning the progression of the tree with time follows a clear progression of species from more basal to more modern. It is in violated by geography too, indicating location of phyla over time is consistent with species divergence. The existence of transitional forms that share basal traits and forms for more than one descendant species is a key evidence and prediction of common descent.

Attavisms, poor design, vestigiality and embryology all validate this concept too by showing features and progression that can only be explained by successive generations diverging and adapting over multiple flowering lines of descent.

And, most importantly all molecular evidence; all of it demonstrates common descent by showing a pattern of molecular differences, patterns in proteins, markers and ERvs between all organisms that can only be explained if they are all related through a sequence of successive divergence that matches exactly the tree of life.

There is no explanation, and no creationists ever does anything more than make bland excuses as to why these are the case!

By your reasoning, we should have fired Einstein. I guess people like you would also have imprisoned Galileo for heresy. Your arguments have no merit at all. In fact, they show just how closed minded and intolerant you are.

People who question legitimate aspects of evolution aren't fired.

Wrong. Here is just one example. http://www.ancient-origins.net...

Those that talk like you, who show zero understanding of how evolution works and simply have to lie, deliberately or through deliberate ignorance, are and should be fired.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:47:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Seems like that "scientist" got fired for thinking he had found certain evidence that "Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church" (credit: Tina Fey).
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz