1. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    07 Jun '08 13:24
    http://darwinconspiracy.com/

    This'll keep you busy.
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    07 Jun '08 16:06
    Originally posted by josephw
    http://darwinconspiracy.com/

    This'll keep you busy.
    they should present this on the news any day now

    groundbreaking. extraordinary science

    i considered posting the above words(btw, they are sarcastic) without checking the site first. but then i thought that in the spirit of science, i should at least look at it. well it proved a waste of 10 seconds of my life.
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    07 Jun '08 16:33
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    they should present this on the news any day now

    groundbreaking. extraordinary science

    i considered posting the above words(btw, they are sarcastic) without checking the site first. but then i thought that in the spirit of science, i should at least look at it. well it proved a waste of 10 seconds of my life.
    I am curious. I had to read for more than just ten seconds.

    Could you quote the sentence that you read in the first tens seconds that convinced you that it was a waste of time.
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    07 Jun '08 16:45
    Darwin wasn't wrong. He was early. He was a prophet.
  5. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    07 Jun '08 16:49
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I am curious. I had to read for more than just ten seconds.

    Could you quote the sentence that you read in the first [b]tens seconds
    that convinced you that it was a waste of time.[/b]
    The statement "evolution is missing a mathematical formula" as a reason for why it's wrong is a start.

    Plus the other "fatal flaws" that are just retreads of the same old already debunked non-flaws in the theory of evolution for a start.

    Those of us who know these fallacious arguments can spot them within a good 10 seconds.
  6. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    55242
    08 Jun '08 06:08
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I am curious. I had to read for more than just ten seconds.

    Could you quote the sentence that you read in the first [b]tens seconds
    that convinced you that it was a waste of time.[/b]
    "On this website we reveal three fatal flaws in the Theory of Evolution that conclusively prove Darwin was wrong."

    No matter how flawed Darwin could be, the flaws ain't gonna be fatal.

    And that was within 5 seconds, my friend.
  7. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    08 Jun '08 08:34
    If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?

    Oh, you mean, like religions tend to do with other religions?
  8. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    08 Jun '08 10:54
    Originally posted by josephw
    http://darwinconspiracy.com/

    This'll keep you busy.
    Not really. These are all the patent lies that have been exposed before.

    No. 1. Not true. Neither Cell Theory, Germ Theory nor Atomic Theory have mathimatical descriptions, yet we remein very sure that we are made of cells, that diseases are caused by germs (and viruses) and that everything is made of atoms. Perhaps you disagree with my statements, or will you concede that the web-site is lying?

    No. 2. The genome, as I'm sure you well know, is 95% non-coding DNA (also known as "Junk DNA"😉. Much if this is non-functional repeats of genes which do work, but have minor alterations which prevent them from coding. Often, it is precisely this type of DNA which mutates, resulting in a new, functional gene, which confers a new ability. However, overall, nowadays, life is very complex, as is the geneone. We should not expect new genes to arrive frequently, which they don't. However, this isn't to say it never happens. A neat experiment I recently read about, whiich studied E.coli evolution over many generations, and could compare the DNA sequences between generations showed that around generation 33,100 of the experiment the E. coli suddenly began to metabolise the citrate in the culture media. E. coli cannot do this. It lacks the gene to break citrate down. Since the system was sterile, no genes could have leaked in from elsewhere, it must have been the result of a new gene.
    http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

    No.3 What the...?! Has this guy never heard of parental care? Or R and K reproductive strategies? I suggest that they go look up an undergraduate ecology textbook on this one. A blatant lie.
  9. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    08 Jun '08 10:57
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    The statement "evolution is missing a mathematical formula" as a reason for why it's wrong is a start.
    This is absolutely true. There are many component algorithms in evolutionary theory, many descriptions of parts of the theory. Evolution is an algorithmic, probabalistic, theory.

    The website makers are not, I believe, stupid. They are merely liars.
  10. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    08 Jun '08 16:39
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?

    Oh, you mean, like religions tend to do with other religions?
    This was supposed to go in Thread 94963.
  11. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    08 Jun '08 16:58
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I am curious. I had to read for more than just ten seconds.

    Could you quote the sentence that you read in the first [b]tens seconds
    that convinced you that it was a waste of time.[/b]
    http://darwinconspiracy.com/

    This'll keep you busy.


    That convinced me.
  12. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    08 Jun '08 18:24
    They prosecuted some poor sucker in these United States
    For teaching that man descended from the apes
    They coulda settled that case without a fuss or fight
    If they'd seen me chasin' you, sugar, through the jungle last night
    They'da called in that jury and a one two three said
    Part man, part monkey, definitely

    Well the church bell rings from the corner steeple
    Man in a monkey suit swears he'll do no evil
    Offers his lover's prayer but his soul lies
    Dark and driftin' and unsatisfied
    Well hey bartender, tell me whaddaya see
    Part man, part monkey, looks like to me

    Well the night is dark, the moon is full
    The flowers of romance exert their pull
    We talk awhile, my fingers slip
    I'm hard and crackling like a whip

    Well did God make man in a breath of holy fire
    Or did he crawl on up out of the muck and mire
    Well the man on the street believes what the bible tells him so
    Well you can ask me, mister, because I know
    Tell them soul-suckin' preachers to come on down and see
    Part man, part monkey, baby that's me

    Bruce Springsteen
  13. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    08 Jun '08 19:07
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    This is absolutely true. There are many component algorithms in evolutionary theory, many descriptions of parts of the theory. Evolution is an algorithmic, probabalistic, theory.

    The website makers are not, I believe, stupid. They are merely liars.
    Well, I don't know whether or not they're liars, but is there a so called working formula for evolution?

    As you know, I don't know squat about algorithms.
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Jun '08 14:02
    Originally posted by josephw
    Well, I don't know whether or not they're liars, but is there a so called working formula for evolution?

    As you know, I don't know squat about algorithms.
    read scott's post again. maybe you will get it.

    working formula for evolution he says. formulas are needed when they could better explain what it would otherwise be a lengthy sentence. or when you need to introduce it in other formulas. do you have a formula explaining that HCl on AgNO3 produces AgCl?
  15. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    10 Jun '08 01:15
    Originally posted by josephw
    Well, I don't know whether or not they're liars, but is there a so called working formula for evolution?

    As you know, I don't know squat about algorithms.
    There are many mathematical descriptions of (parts of) evolution. The work of Hamilton, Trivers, Haldane and Fischer in the early to mid-20th Century was largely modelling population genetics. Richard Dawkins, in his scientific career, furthered this to some extent.

    But, it is important to remember that a theory is an explanation of a whole data set. There is no mathematical model which spans all of plate techtonic theory, for example, yet there are many partial models which describe what is happenning in certain parts.
Back to Top