2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe intricate design inferred in biological science is why Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, Francis Crick, encouraged his fellow evolutionists that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”
The theory of evolution is only concerned with an explanation of biological diversity. The author is equivocating on the term 'evolution', trying to blend a specific theory of biology in with the general idea that things change over time.
Dawkins also said life forms have the appearance of design, but that can not be because there is no designer. So they must keep reminding themselves that it has all evolved to continue the great fraud of evolution.
As stated by Nobel laureate Dr. Robert A. Millikan: “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove” (Bowden, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud..., p. 216-218).
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 RJHindsEinstein's opposition to probabilistic QM shows that we need not fear even formidable opposition; if anything, it forces us to make better arguments and find better evidence.
The intricate design inferred in biological science is why Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, Francis Crick, encouraged his fellow evolutionists that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”
Dawkins also said life forms have the appearance of design, but that can not be because th ...[text shortened]... ientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
(The Double Helix, p. 14).
Originally posted by RJHindsah, douches' can always fall back on quote mining. that's a classic.
The intricate design inferred in biological science is why Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, Francis Crick, encouraged his fellow evolutionists that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”
Dawkins also said life forms have the appearance of design, but that can not be because th ...[text shortened]... ientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
(The Double Helix, p. 14).
Originally posted by RJHindsYou start with a question concerning science, but offer explanations from a source concerned with faith (and that has been discredited generally by the faithful).
http://rcg.org/books/effai.html
But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this di ...[text shortened]... used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrHowever the evolutionists make no adequate explanation. Their explanations are filled with holes and will not hold water.
You start with a question concerning science, but offer explanations from a source concerned with faith (and that has been discredited generally by the faithful).
Originally posted by RJHindsyou don't even know what evolution is. you quoted a source that told you about 6-7 kinds of evolution and you have already been told of this misinformation. there is only one kind of evolution in the theory of evolution. of course you've been told this many times and you know it. you're just being willfully dishonest.
However the evolutionists make no adequate explanation. Their explanations are filled with holes and will not hold water.
but then again, you're not a christian and we already know that. your persistence in dishonesty further proves that you're also not an honorable person.
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYour persistence in putting forth the lies of the theory of evolution as fact, rather than a hypothesis, shows either your dishonesty or your ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and stupidity.
you don't even know what evolution is. you quoted a source that told you about 6-7 kinds of evolution and you have already been told of this misinformation. there is only one kind of evolution in the theory of evolution. of course you've been told this many times and you know it. you're just being willfully dishonest.
but then again, you're not a c ...[text shortened]... t. your persistence in dishonesty further proves that you're also not an honorable person.
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).
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsread the book instead of quote mining it, douche. you just might learn something to alleviate a bit of your stupidity.
Your persistence in putting forth the lies of the theory of evolution as fact, rather than a hypothesis, shows either your dishonesty or your ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and stupidity.
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 RJHindsIn a sense yes.
... Could a lump of coal produce a chicken? ...
The coal burns producing CO2 enters the carbon cycle and can become part of any living thing - including a chicken.
Amazing isnt it?
And that is your problem you fail to accept how amazing Nature is - instead you have to attribute it to magic, because your puny intellect cannot understand how natural processes can accumulate to produce the big picture". You accept small changes ("adaptation"😉 but cannot comprehend small changes adding up to large changes ("evolution"😉. You think god painted the rainbow in the sky and some much translated bronze age text is the be-all and end-all of wisdom. You are sad, mad and stupid.
NB I have used your definitions of adaptation and evolution.
Originally posted by wolfgang59"The coal burns producing CO2 enters the carbon cycle and can become part of any living thing - including a chicken."
In a sense yes.
The coal burns producing CO2 enters the carbon cycle and can become part of any living thing - including a chicken.
Amazing isnt it?
And that is your problem you fail to accept how amazing Nature is - instead you have to attribute it to magic, because your puny intellect cannot understand how natural processes can accumulate to p ...[text shortened]... ou are sad, mad and stupid.
NB I have used your definitions of adaptation and evolution.
That's the best definiton of evolution I have heard yet from you Atheists. I applaud you for your honesty!
Yes, it is amazing. It sounds like a miracle. halleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
I accept amazing nature as a miracle work of God, whereas you believe it is a miracle work of God's creation and not of the creator.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo
I accept amazing nature as a miracle work of God, whereas you believe it is a miracle work of God's creation and not of the creator.
I do not believe it is a miracle work of gods creation.
Why do you persistently misquote other people?
Is it to avoid answering difficult questions? (Just a guess) 😏
Originally posted by wolfgang59It is FMF that persistently misquotes other people, not me.
No
I do not believe it is a miracle work of gods creation.
Why do you persistently misquote other people?
Is it to avoid answering difficult questions? (Just a guess) 😏
You are not a very good guesser. Stay away from the Las Vegas casinos.