The Death of Darwinism

Originally posted by Lundos
"Why do young children put their fingers in their ears, or shout over us, ignore our questions, or say to us, “I’m not going to tell you.” Why do they so often refuse to listen to what we have to say?

Most often, your child’s silence is an instinctive self-protective behavior, evoked by the anticipation of painful feelings. Children do not want to talk to ...[text shortened]... eelings will go away."

http://kennethbarish.com/2013/05/how-to-get-your-child-to-talk-to-you/

Our young children need protection from the false teachings, like Darwinism, that makes them feel unimportant. They also need to be shown that they are loved. This is why they need to be taught the story of Christ and Biblical creation.

Many scientists of the past have acknowledged that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. Now with the discovery of DNA and the far greater integrated complexity of life itself, the only reasonable explanation is that it must be a result of an Intelligent Source.

DNA - Evidence for a Creator

YouTube

Creation predicts common designs, DNA, homology is evidence for a Creator

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Many scientists of the past have acknowledged that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. Now with the discovery of DNA and the far greater integrated complexity of life itself, the only reasonable explanation is that it must be a result of an Intelligent Source.

DNA - Evidence for a Creator

http:// ...[text shortened]... designs, DNA, homology is evidence for a Creator

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

You keep posting BS video's, where are the science papers in real peer reviewed journals? The video's you post are political, they aim to convince those who can't think much for themselves to their way of thinking and therefore get more political power since they have no science to defend, they are free to attack real science. Your video's are just political tracts. Not science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Our young children need protection from the false teachings, like Darwinism, that makes them feel unimportant. They also need to be shown that they are loved. This is why they need to be taught the story of Christ and Biblical creation.

Good loving relationships with family, friends and a thoughtful wider community can provide a child with everything (s)he needs to deal with the reality of things - such as the fact of evolution. Make-believe should really end with santa.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You keep posting BS video's, where are the science papers in real peer reviewed journals? The video's you post are political, they aim to convince those who can't think much for themselves to their way of thinking and therefore get more political power since they have no science to defend, they are free to attack real science. Your video's are just political tracts. Not science.

It is not my fault your science journals don't discuss the significance of the discovery of DNA. The evolution Democrats are going to ignore certain information and slant other the information to agree with their politics.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not my fault your science journals don't discuss the significance of the discovery of DNA. The evolution Democrats are going to ignore certain information and slant other the information to agree with their politics.

There are no papers coming from creation scientists, that dearth of papers is why they don't appear in the journals. The journals would probably WELCOME such paper written by real scientists so the rest of the scientific world can have a laugh with the refutations that would come in.

That is the real reason there are no papers, the creation scientists are afraid to be criticized and ridiculed in public. THAT is the reason there are no creation science papers, because there is no real science behind ANY of it and those scientists know if full well and therefore ONLY put out political video's designed not to show science but to attract followers with the agenda of building up political support for their repressive ideas.

They want to force creationism to be taught along evolution in a science class room as if creationism is a real science which the lack of papers shows conclusively it is not.

It can't be helped that you and your creationist buddies are the laughing stock of the world.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There are no papers coming from creation scientists, that dearth of papers is why they don't appear in the journals. The journals would probably WELCOME such paper written by real scientists so the rest of the scientific world can have a laugh with the refutations that would come in.

That is the real reason there are no papers, the creation scientists a ...[text shortened]...

It can't be helped that you and your creationist buddies are the laughing stock of the world.

Papers are just opinions anyway and don't prove anything. Videos are better because one can see and hear examples of the information presented instead of just reading someones opinion about it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Papers are just opinions anyway and don't prove anything. Videos are better because one can see and hear examples of the information presented instead of just reading someones opinion about it.

So the written word is just an expressed opinion? Bible?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Papers are just opinions anyway and don't prove anything. Videos are better because one can see and hear examples of the information presented instead of just reading someones opinion about it.

Eh. That is just complete and utter nonsense.
But being 'educated' by Youtube explains your lack of knowledge, reason and logic.
Btw how do you know Youtube weren't created by the devil?

Originally posted by Lundos
Eh. That is just complete and utter nonsense.
But being 'educated' by Youtube explains your lack of knowledge, reason and logic.
Btw how do you know Youtube weren't created by the devil?

Evolution Demolition

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution Demolition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf32BXMSN7A

They couldn't get through the first ten minutes RJ. They're far too open minded for that. It doesn't matter if the science behind evolution has been debunked or not. Atheists don't want to know the truth.

Just as Dawkins' book suggests, not only is there no God, but they hate Him too.

I remember my philosophy professor looking me in the eye saying, " if there were a God I'd hate His guts". True story.

Originally posted by josephw
They couldn't get through the first ten minutes RJ. They're far too open minded for that. It doesn't matter if the science behind evolution has been debunked or not. Atheists don't want to know the truth.

Just as Dawkins' book suggests, not only is there no God, but they hate Him too.

I remember my philosophy professor looking me in the eye saying, " if there were a God I'd hate His guts". True story.

I believe sonhouse or one of the other atheist on here has said the same thing.

Originally posted by josephw
They couldn't get through the first ten minutes RJ.

Alright, alright. But just the first ten minutes. Since those ten minutes is a cavalcade of embarrassing mistakes on the part of the narrator, I simply can't keep watching. It's like watching a train derail, it's awful, you just have to look away.

Do you make life decisions based on evolution?
No.

Dawkin's "God Delusion" is not a science book.
It's generally considered a non-fictional science/philosophy book because it deals with the clash between a scientific and religious mindset, the societal consequences and how these two mindsets (in Dawkin's view) are not compatible.

Dawkins judges god without believing in god.
Philosophy. You take a hypothetical scenario, and for the argument assume it's true (such as assuming for the moment that yahweh exists), and then you discuss it from that point of view. Philosophy.

Dawkins doesn't believe in absolute morals with which to judge
Right. He uses moral concepts derived at through generations of trial and errors. And it's a good thing too, or he might actually be confused into believeing that genocide and slavery can be defended morally, as the bible suggest.

Either the appearance of design came about by chance, or were designed by an intellect.
Or something in between, like say: evolution.

There is no rational basis for atheism without evolution.
I probably misheard that (being temporarily distracted), because that's just a dumb statement. I won't rail against it, since that's probably not what he said.

Evolution is surprisingly unscientific.
Let's see: a model that attempts to explain the appearance of design in nature, without invoking magical (supernatural) claims, that is falsifiable and has stood up against 150 years of critiscism, tests and collected evidence. I'd say it's surprisingly scientific. More so than the theory of gravity even.

Religious people who accept evolution, do so because they don't want to appear stupid.
Or, like rational people everywhere, they're convinced by surprisingly scientific models that stands the test of time and merciless scrutiny.

Science means knowledge, and always begins with a guess or speculation.
An educated guess we call hypothesis is developed to try and explain a specific observation made. It must be falsifiable or it doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis. But, yeah, it always begins with a testable model that is based on an initial educated guess or speculation, if you will.

Sometimes scientists dishonestly pretends that their speculations are science (and then arrogantly expect us to believe without verification).
A scientific hypothesis is always testable. Therefore we can test it. Therefore we specifically don't have to believe without verification.

Haeckel's drawings...
...have been debunked by scientists. I'm glad he brought this up, no doubt to demonstrate that despite his railings against science, science actually works as advertised. Fancy that.

No radiometric dating method is reliable, yadda, yadda...

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044

absolute dating methods provide chronological estimates of the age of certain geological materials associated with fossils, and even direct age measurements of the fossil material itself. To establish the age of a rock or a fossil, researchers use some type of clock to determine the date it was formed. Geologists commonly use radiometric dating methods, based on the natural radioactive decay of certain elements such as potassium and carbon, as reliable clocks to date ancient events. Geologists also use other methods - such as electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence, which assess the effects of radioactivity on the accumulation of electrons in imperfections, or "traps," in the crystal structure of a mineral - to determine the age of the rocks or fossils.

No evidence has been found to suggest that bird's feathers evolved from dinosaur scales.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

feathers or feather-like integument have been discovered on dozens of genera of dinosaurs via both direct and indirect fossil evidence. The fossil feathers of one specimen of the alvarezsaurid Shuvuuia deserti have tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers. Although the vast majority of feather discoveries have been for coeleurosaurian theropods, the discoveries of integument on at least three ornithschians raise the likelihood that proto-feathers were present in basal dinosaurs, and perhaps even a more ancestral animal, in light of the pycnofibers of pterosaurs.

Words have meanings. Evolution doesn't simply mean change.
Given how fluent human languages is, in order to have a conversation of precision, we must often agree on what we mean when we use a specific word that can have different meanings in different contexts. Evolutionary theory at the core is simply the acknowledgement that organisms change over time. There are many mechanisms used within the field of evolutionary theory to try and understand how these changes come about, but yes, simplistically speaking, evolution means change.

Abiogenesis is a kind of evolution.
Fair enough. It is, however, not the same as the theory of evolution, which is very specific, and usually what scientists think of when you use the word evolution. There's a reason why they call abiogenesis abiogenesis and evolution evolution, and that reason is (surprise) because they're not one and the same. You can't rail against evolution using perceived problems with abiogenesis hypotheses. That is dishonest and immediately disqualifies you in any serious scientific debate.

Originally posted by C Hess
Alright, alright. But just the first ten minutes. Since those ten minutes is a cavalcade of embarrassing mistakes on the part of the narrator, I simply can't keep watching. It's like watching a train derail, it's awful, you just have to look away.

[b]Do you make life decisions based on evolution?
No.

Dawkin's "God Delusion" is not a science book ...[text shortened]... biogenesis. That is dishonest and immediately disqualifies you in any serious scientific debate.

"That is dishonest and immediately disqualifies you in any serious scientific debate."

Good post Hess. I will take it that you aren't necessarily directing the above statement at me. I couldn't "qualify" to debate the first thing scientifically. I've never tried.

But that debate is far from concluded. Science hasn't even begun to prove scientifically that evolution is true. I can see that from the debate I've seen and heard all my life. Every point, pro and con, has been refuted on both sides of the debate it seems.

"Proof" isn't what we think it is, I think. I'm not into science. I don't make consideration by science how or why the universe exists. What I know is is that I am a part of it. I'm made of the stuff of creation.

Creation has a much grander ideological perspective than evolution. Creation imposes the possibility of the impossible. Science can't do that. Science can't bring the dead back to life. But God can. That's why I believe it, because it's too good to be true. By faith, not science, I believe in the impossible. Science has its use, but God gives life.

And I don't care what kind of idiot I look like saying so. I know it's true.

Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

It's not a delusion. Do you think I would deliberately make myself look like a fool for nothing?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"That is dishonest and immediately disqualifies you in any serious scientific debate."

Good post Hess. I will take it that you aren't necessarily directing the above statement at me. I couldn't "qualify" to debate the first thing scientifically. I've never tried.

But that debate is far from concluded. Science hasn't even begun to prove scientif It's not a delusion. Do you think I would deliberately make myself look like a fool for nothing?

No, I directed that statement at anyone who would use abiogenesis hypotheses to try and make evolutionary theory look uncertain (which - and I apologise if I confuse you for someone else - I believe you have done in an earlier thread).

I'm puzzled. You admit you couldn't debate the first thing scientifically, and yet you "know" that the debate is far from settled? The "debate" you've been listening to is not the scientific debate. It's the political debate (as sonhouse repeatedly points out). Scientifically speaking it's a closed case (unless new evidence comes to bear that contradicts evolutionary theory - which frankly speaking is unlikely at this point). All that creationist defenders do is attack minor problems that scientists originally discovered and corrected for. And they do it only for religious and political motives, not scientific ones.

If you're not one of them, my apologies if I come across as overly hostile. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the debate is far from settled because a few people can't reconsile their religious and political views with the reality of evolution. All you have to do is educate yourself on the subject, so that you can debate the first thing scientifically, and problem solved.