Leaky says evolution debate will soon be over:

Originally posted by RJHinds
Leaky says evolution debate will soon be over because scientific discoveries are going to prove the theory of evolution impossible.

Hey, if a real scientific investigation with peer review and all that shows conclusively evolution is bollux I'll be the first to burn my copy of Darwin.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hey, if a real scientific investigation with peer review and all that shows conclusively evolution is bollux I'll be the first to burn my copy of Darwin.

A false threat, however foolish. It is always an error to expunge the records of the history of human thought.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hey, if a real scientific investigation with peer review and all that shows conclusively evolution is bollux I'll be the first to burn my copy of Darwin.

Darwin's "Origin of Species" is a good book. The only real mistake he made was at the end when he started to speculate on a common ancestor rather than let scientific findings speak for themselves. Now however, all new scientific discoveries are view from that false worldview and it has resulted in many stupid scientists.

Nobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
(The Double Helix, p. 14).

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin's "Origin of Species" is a good book. The only real mistake he made was at the end when he started to speculate on a common ancestor rather than let scientific findings speak for themselves. Now however, all new scientific discoveries are view from that false worldview and it has resulted in many stupid scientists.

Nobel laureate James Watson st ...[text shortened]... tists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
(The Double Helix, p. 14).

Wow! Now, I am beginning to remember why I regained portions of my sanity when I left this site for several years. The forums are toxic with fundamental factual and reasoning errors so profound that FAUX SPEWS seems almost rational in comparison.

Darwin made several errors. You failed to identify any in this post. From one false conclusion you derive another that is not even logically connected. Then, you cap it with an appalling non-sequitur divorced from its original context.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Wow! Now, I am beginning to remember why I regained portions of my sanity when I left this site for several years. The forums are toxic with fundamental factual and reasoning errors so profound that FAUX SPEWS seems almost rational in comparison.

Darwin made several errors. You failed to identify any in this post. From one false conclusion you derive anot ...[text shortened]... y connected. Then, you cap it with an appalling non-sequitur divorced from its original context.

Intelligent Design,DNA and NeoDarwinism

YouTube

Originally posted by Wulebgr
A false threat, however foolish. It is always an error to expunge the records of the history of human thought.

I was thinking more of a joke, burning bra's as protest to feminist movements....
I would never actually burn or even throw away a book unless it was Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
I was thinking more of a joke, burning bra's as protest to feminist movements....
I would never actually burn or even throw away a book unless it was Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos🙂

+1

Originally posted by RJHinds
Intelligent Design,DNA and NeoDarwinism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4b7PlL4bqw

I expect to die sometime in the next few decades, which does not leave me enough time for YouTube videos that spew nonsense. Summarize the "argument" in 1000 or so words and I can read it in a few seconds.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I expect to die sometime in the next few decades, which does not leave me enough time for YouTube videos that spew nonsense. Summarize the "argument" in 1000 or so words and I can read it in a few seconds.

I can sum it up in one sentence:

If it doesn't agree with the bible, that science is false, whatever science it is.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I expect to die sometime in the next few decades, which does not leave me enough time for YouTube videos that spew nonsense. Summarize the "argument" in 1000 or so words and I can read it in a few seconds.

Sorry, I can't do it. Just die ignorant.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-scientist-evolution-debate-history.html

Creationism relegated to ancient history where it belongs.

Of course there is still RJ 'don't confuse me with facts, my mind (what there is left of it after its self cauterization) is made up' Hinds.

leaky is wrong. the debate is already over, science, reason and evidence defeated creationism long ago. those hanging on are in denial of the evidence.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
leaky is wrong. the debate is already over, science, reason and evidence defeated creationism long ago. those hanging on are in denial of the evidence.

Evolution is a Myth.

http://www.themythofevolution.com/Site/Myth%20of%20Evolution.html

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-scientist-evolution-debate-history.html

Creationism relegated to ancient history where it belongs.

Of course there is still RJ 'don't confuse me with facts, my mind (what there is left of it after its self cauterization) is made up' Hinds.

Well to be clear, Leakey did not say anything resembling the thread title, which I am pleased to note since he is a very intelligent scientist with a brilliant track record. Here is the bones of what he said:

"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one."

Any hope for mankind's future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.

"If we're spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?" he asked.

"If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."

Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion.

"If you tell me, well, people really need a faith ... I understand that," he said.

"I see no reason why you shouldn't go through your life thinking if you're a good citizen, you'll get a better future in the afterlife ...."
... ...

Leakey, who clearly cherishes investigating the past, is less optimistic about the future.

"We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive."

Now I don't care what RJH has to say about this as his sentence generator just issues nonsense. What Jaywill appears to have to contribute at best is that nothing in science directly contradicts Genesis or proves it is false, which we do not have to mind much since Genesis does not say much in the first place on these matters. If we all decided today that we accept the truth of the bible, we would not have the first clue what to do in the face of, as he says, new pathogens, new strains of disease etc. We would be like the people of the early Middle Ages who assumed the Vikings were sent by god to punish their sins, and to put things right built more churches and monastries for the Vikings to pillage and turned away from sinful stuff like defending themselves properly. They confronted the Black Death later on, secure in their belief in the bible (even the Vikings were converted) and lacking the distraction of science altogether. Not a great precedent I regret to say.

Leakey's point, rather, is that humanity faces important issues which demand our attention and responsible action. It is urgent that we face up to the evidence since our species is no more invulnerable to environmental change than all the others. The planet gets along fine without dinosaurs and it will get along fine without us. That may be sooner rather than later.

I would go much further than Leakey. It is time we recognised the reactionary and destructive political agenda behind Creationism.

Originally posted by finnegan
Well to be clear, Leakey did not say anything resembling the thread title, which I am pleased to note since he is a very intelligent scientist with a brilliant track record. Here is the bones of what he said:

[quote] "If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey say the reactionary and destructive political agenda behind Creationism.

There is no destructive political agenda behind Creationism. There is no agenda to prevent good responsible advancement in science. We are against any effort of scientist to deliberately destroy the credibility of the Holy Bilbe in the eyes of the public. That is exactly what Atheistic evolutionary scientist are attempting to do. They have been successful in leading many Christians from believing in the absolute truth of the Holy Bible to accepting a god that began a creation, but then allowed random chance to take over and after billions or more years we have evolved and are not really the direct creation of God. This is not acceptable to True Christians, who believe the Holly Bible is the inspired word of God.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I expect to die sometime in the next few decades, which does not leave me enough time for YouTube videos that spew nonsense. Summarize the "argument" in 1000 or so words and I can read it in a few seconds.

"few" means 3 or 4 where I come from. You must be a hell of a quick reader 🙂

Mind you I did appreciate your post 2 before this one ...