1. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    21 Oct '13 17:28
    This free seminar defines the classical Darwinian Theory of Evolution and shows that it is absolutely unscientific from every angle, being totally contradicted by mathematics, genetics, thermo-dynamics, anthropology, geology, biology, zoology and the fossil record.

    http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1081
  2. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51427
    21 Oct '13 17:43
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    This free seminar defines the classical Darwinian Theory of Evolution and shows that it is absolutely unscientific from every angle, being totally contradicted by mathematics, genetics, thermo-dynamics, anthropology, geology, biology, zoology and the fossil record.

    http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1081
    Send them a message, if it's that easy to falsify the theory it shouldn't take too long to write a paper and have it peer reviewed.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    21 Oct '13 19:481 edit
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Send them a message, if it's that easy to falsify the theory it shouldn't take too long to write a paper and have it peer reviewed.
    There have been peer reviewed papers written and published. However, most of the scientific magazines and journals are controlled by atheists who will not allow the publishing of scientific papers by creation scientists.

    The Instructor
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    21 Oct '13 20:03
    Understanding the difference between historical and operational science helps to clear up some of the confusion in the Creation/Evolution debate. The origin of life on earth and the origin of all species of animals and plants are historical events. They cannot be observed. Any conclusions we draw about how these events occurred will depend on assumptions that we must make. If our assumptions are wrong then our conclusions are wrong. The underlying assumption of Creation is that there is a God. The underlying assumption of Evolution is that there is no God.

    http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=644
  5. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    21 Oct '13 20:09
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Understanding the difference between historical and operational science helps to clear up some of the confusion in the Creation/Evolution debate. The origin of life on earth and the origin of all species of animals and plants are historical events. They cannot be observed. Any conclusions we draw about how these events occurred will depend on assumptions tha ...[text shortened]... there is no God.

    http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=644
    I like this one...
    For example, radiometric dating methods [2] are often used to date the age of rocks but all of these dating methods have two important assumptions – the amount of material being measured started with a particular amount when the rock was first formed and the rate of radioactive decay has always been the same. These are two very big assumptions that are virtually unknowable and yet these methods are used to “prove” the age of the rock. In actuality, they are not capable of proving anything because the underlying assumptions are un-provable.
  6. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51427
    21 Oct '13 21:59
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There have been peer reviewed papers written and published. However, most of the scientific magazines and journals are controlled by atheists who will not allow the publishing of scientific papers by creation scientists.

    The Instructor
    List these papers.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    21 Oct '13 23:061 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I like this one...
    [b]For example, radiometric dating methods [2] are often used to date the age of rocks but all of these dating methods have two important assumptions – the amount of material being measured started with a particular amount when the rock was first formed and the rate of radioactive decay has always been the same. These are two very big ...[text shortened]... they are not capable of proving anything because the underlying assumptions are un-provable.
    [/b]
    the rate of radioactive decay has, in fact, always been the same.
    you can't assume that at one point in the vast history that is 6000 years, gravity didn't exist, the electromagnetic force behaved differently, and a god magically willed the universe into being, in 6 days. if i use that same reasoning, i can assume anything and you can't stop me. nobody can. however, the rational people may choose to ignore me and everyone making these unfounded claims.


    fundamental laws of physics , being fundamental, do not change.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    21 Oct '13 23:12
    YouTube&noredirect=1
  9. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    21 Oct '13 23:19
    and for all retards out there claiming scientists are part of a huge conspiracy to keep the truth from reaching the masses:


    you have to have a purpose, something to gain, from forming a conspiracy. do atheists sell more "i'm an atheist" shirt? is there a booming economy for atheist thongs? do they get richer, more powerful if they manage to get you to understand (not believe) evolution?
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    22 Oct '13 05:58
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8&noredirect=1
    YouTube

    A fool says in his heart there is no God

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    22 Oct '13 06:08
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    List these papers.
    You can find some listed here:

    http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

    The Instructor
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    22 Oct '13 06:211 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    This free seminar defines the classical Darwinian Theory of Evolution and shows that it is absolutely unscientific from every angle, being totally contradicted by mathematics, genetics, thermo-dynamics, anthropology, geology, biology, zoology and the fossil record.
    Do you yourself understand the arguments in question, or are you just passing them on because they support your religion? If the latter, you are in danger of making yourself and your religion look bad when it turns out that the arguments are badly flawed.
    If the former, would you care to discuss any of them in detail?
    I, for example, would be interested to know where the Theory of Evolution is contradicted by mathematics, but I am only interested in discussing it if you yourself claim to understand the argument.

    I also feel compelled to point out that anyone who can substantiate those claims in a scientific setting is in for some Nobel prizes. If they are really good they might get one for Physics and one for Biology and maybe even some more. That's several million dollars and some serious bragging rights.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    22 Oct '13 06:42
    DNA repair mechanisms reveal a contradiction in evolutionary theory

    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/04/26/dna_repair_mechanisms_reveal_a_contradic

    The Instructor
  14. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51427
    22 Oct '13 07:06
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You can find some listed here:

    http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

    The Instructor
    The Discovery Institute, that well known bastion of scientific endeavour. I reckon that proves my point.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    22 Oct '13 07:19
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    The Discovery Institute, that well known bastion of scientific endeavour. I reckon that proves my point.
    Your reply proves my point.

    The Instructor
Back to Top