Science/Environment Explaining evolution and natural selection.

[Total Power]

 

[Pie eyed]

That scull difference alone, suggests to me they are closer to monkeys than humans T.P.

People can make their own judgement calls on it.

LOL.
Phrenologist.

 

[Chief]

I dont know how people keep patience with him but even i am losing it now all the research articles i pasted meant absolutely nothing to him

He doesn't want them to mean anything to him.

His ego cannot stand it, so he has hammered a stake firmly into the ground and chained himself to it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Admiral Byng]

Also, Africans apparently don't have any Neanderthal DNA....Odd that.

Actually is confirmation of the idea that modern humans evolved in Africa and then migrated to the rest of the world.
Also confirmation of the idea that primate species can interbreed if they shared a common ancestor less than 2 million years ago.

 

[Educate_Savages]

Where are the herp derp creationists? Too scared to expose themselves as intellectual pygmies?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Actually is confirmation of the idea that modern humans evolved in Africa and then migrated to the rest of the world.
Also confirmation of the idea that primate species can interbreed if they shared a common ancestor less than 2 million years ago.

Yeah.... & lost their tans along the way.

Confirms nothing other than your confirmation bias.

 

[Total Power]

Yeah.... & lost their tans along the way.
.

WTF! seriously??

 

[Pie eyed]

Yeah.... & lost their tans along the way.

Confirms nothing other than your confirmation bias.

Definitely a comment worthy of a Darwin Award......

An evoltuionary dead end in the making, your gene pool.

 

[Procrastinator35]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html

I'll just leave this here for the evolutionary acolytes perusal....Don't go having a coronary now peeps.

From the Introduction

"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."1 Such was professed by Eugenie Scott, the de facto head of the Darwin lobby, while speaking to the media in response to the Texas State Board of Education's 2009 vote to require students to learn about both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution.

It seems that almost on a daily basis, we find the news media quoting evolutionary scientists declaring that materialist accounts of biological and chemical evolution are "fact." Students who take college-preparatory or college-level courses on evolution are warned that doubting Darwinism is tantamount to committing intellectual suicide -- you might as well proclaim the Earth is flat.2 Such bullying is enough to convince many that it's much easier on your academic standing, your career, and your reputation to just buy into Darwinism. The few holdouts who remain are intimidated into silence.

This chapter will review some of this literature, and show that there are numerous legitimate scientific challenges to core tenets of Darwinian theory, as well as predominant theories of chemical evolution. Those who harbor doubts about Darwinism need not be terrified by academic bullies who pretend there is no scientific debate to be had.

In other words, What alot of us intuitively suspected all along.

Darwinism & the s0-called 'theory of Evolution' is full of holes, gaps & logical lacunae; yet to be adequately explained or legitimized.

For those of us who still think for themselves: enjoy it.

 

[Procrastinator35]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/a_billion_genes103091.html

http://www.discovery.org/news/intel...-cannot-demonstrate-darwinian-evolution/10365

Lets see the 2 supposed 'evolutionary know-all's': Total Power & Pie Eyed, parrot & BS their way around these articles.

 

[Total Power]

Lets see the 2 supposed 'evolutionary know-all's': Total Power & Pie Eyed, parrot & BS their way around these articles.

LMAO, are you taking the piss here? have you taken a look at your sources?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

This is your source, it has got NOTHING to do with science, official agendas from your source states:

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

How can you start being scientific if your "goal" is to explain how "god" created everything???

Have some self-respect and start quoting credible sources, whats next? Insitute of creation research?

 

[Total Power]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/a_billion_genes103091.html

http://www.discovery.org/news/intel...-cannot-demonstrate-darwinian-evolution/10365

Lets see the 2 supposed 'evolutionary know-all's': Total Power & Pie Eyed, parrot & BS their way around these articles.

This is the person you are quoting, a lawyer and a hobby scientist.

http://www.discovery.org/p/188




and as per your second article, william dembski, all mainstream scientists reject him, he has been owned many times before for lying. Atleast know whom you are quoting, shall i start quoting andrew bolt in equality and human rights now? you have done this before and you are doing this again, whats left is bare bones now, you are trying so hard to disprove evolution with pseudo scientists with zero credibility.

Then you complain about dawkins talking about religion? atleast try to quote a "scientist" with some credibility behind them, then maybe we can take you and your try hard articles seriously. Do you ever wonder why you have NFI about evolution? cause you keep reading these websites and pseduo scientists, if you are quoting scientists, quote REAL scientists. You accuse me of quoting something i dont understand, maybe you should take your own advice and stop posting creationist sites cause you are doing yourself no favour. Show me a single article from a credible scientist that agrees with these frauds. ONE.

 

[Procrastinator35]

LOL....Too predictable by half TP.

Address the points raised & cease playing the man....Oh,, that's right....You can''t

Loving the zealousness....Keep true to the Orthodox faith....I'm rather enjoying your apologia.

 

[Total Power]

LOL....Too predictable by half TP.

Address the points raised & cease playing the man....Oh,, that's right....You can''t

Loving the zealousness....Keep true to the Orthodox faith....I'm rather enjoying your apologia.

Why would i bother reading when its not science in the first place? werent you talking about confirmation bias above? would you quote Dawkins if you want to talk about Chriatianity? take your own advice and quote real scientists and then i can respond. Do you ever wonder where you get your faux knowledge of evolution from?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Why would i bother reading when its not science in the first place? werent you talking about confirmation bias above? would you quote Dawkins if you want to talk about Chriatianity? take your own advice and quote real scientists and then i can respond. Do you ever wonder where you get your faux knowledge of evolution from?

LOL....It's time for you to examine your own confirmation bias TP.

Firstly: You don't decide what is science & what is not....The fact is that any argument or interpretation of the data can be read in a myriad of ways, yet must 'somehow' always conform to the "Church of Darwinism.'' ...And that any arguments or interpretations that run counter to it's general hypotheses are automatically labelled as 'heretical' or 'not-science'.

This is not science TP....It's a cult; pure & simple.

 

[darth_timon]

LOL....It's time for you to examine your own confirmation bias TP.

Firstly: You don't decide what is science & what is not....The fact is that any argument or interpretation of the data can be read in a myriad of ways, yet must 'somehow' always conform to the "Church of Darwinism.'' ...And that any arguments or interpretations that run counter to it's general hypotheses are automatically labelled as 'heretical' or 'not-science'.

This is not science TP....It's a cult; pure & simple.

The irony is strong here.

Creationists work backward. They treat their conclusion as undeniable and force the evidence to fit it. This isn't science.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[Pie eyed]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html

I'll just leave this here for the evolutionary acolytes perusal....Don't go having a coronary now peeps.

From the Introduction

"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."1 Such was professed by Eugenie Scott, the de facto head of the Darwin lobby, while speaking to the media in response to the Texas State Board of Education's 2009 vote to require students to learn about both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution.

It seems that almost on a daily basis, we find the news media quoting evolutionary scientists declaring that materialist accounts of biological and chemical evolution are "fact." Students who take college-preparatory or college-level courses on evolution are warned that doubting Darwinism is tantamount to committing intellectual suicide -- you might as well proclaim the Earth is flat.2 Such bullying is enough to convince many that it's much easier on your academic standing, your career, and your reputation to just buy into Darwinism. The few holdouts who remain are intimidated into silence.

This chapter will review some of this literature, and show that there are numerous legitimate scientific challenges to core tenets of Darwinian theory, as well as predominant theories of chemical evolution. Those who harbor doubts about Darwinism need not be terrified by academic bullies who pretend there is no scientific debate to be had.

In other words, What alot of us intuitively suspected all along.

Darwinism & the s0-called 'theory of Evolution' is full of holes, gaps & logical lacunae; yet to be adequately explained or legitimized.

For those of us who still think for themselves: enjoy it.

Not sure anyone ever claimed there were not gaps in the theory of evolution. In any event only a total moron would even try to compare it to the theory of creation, which is just one giant gap.
Posting crap like that just confirms your mental midgetry.

 

[Procrastinator35]

The irony is strong here.

Creationists work backward. They treat their conclusion as undeniable and force the evidence to fit it. This isn't science.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

That was kind of my point....Darwinism has taken over the exact same orthodoxy once held by the Roman Catholic Church....And any dissenters are labelled as 'heretics & 'unscientific'.

Nice to see you grasped that universal point though.

 

[darth_timon]

That was kind of my point....Darwinism has taken over the exact same orthodoxy once held by the Roman Catholic Church....And any dissenters are labelled as 'heretics & 'unscientific'.

Nice to see you grasped that universal point though.

Except that isn't the case. It's creationists who hold to unyielding dogma - the Bible is literal and infallible etc. Most scientists don't have a 'faith' in evolution - they have looked at evidence and reached conclusions. The opposite of the approach taken by creationism.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[M Malice]

Firstly: You don't decide what is science & what is not....

i will stick with reputable peer reviewed scientific journals for my "science".

 

[Procrastinator35]

Except that isn't the case. It's creationists who hold to unyielding dogma - the Bible is literal and infallible etc. Most scientists don't have a 'faith' in evolution - they have looked at evidence and reached conclusions. The opposite of the approach taken by creationism.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Ah yes....The diametrical opposite....It's like looking in a mirror hey.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html

Once again: Any & all data is 'slanted' towards 'agreeing' with the over-arching hypotheses of evolutionary theory....Which henceforth, becomes a universal cosmogony....Or, dare I say it. A CHURCH for the converted faithful.

 

[Pie eyed]

I love it when some idiot you put on ignore tries to respond to you with some idiotic religious garbage he dredged up on the internet from some site constructed by creationist inbreds.
Only the second person I have ever put on ignore. World class ingnoramus.

 

[darth_timon]

Ah yes....The diametrical opposite....It's like looking in a mirror hey.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html

Once again: Any & all data is 'slanted' towards 'agreeing' with the over-arching hypotheses of evolutionary theory....Which henceforth, becomes a universal cosmogony....Or, dare I say it. A CHURCH for the converted faithful.

The irony of linking to a blatantly pro-creationism site and complaining about 'slanted evidence'

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[Total Power]

Ah yes....The diametrical opposite....It's like looking in a mirror hey.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html

Once again: Any & all data is 'slanted' towards 'agreeing' with the over-arching hypotheses of evolutionary theory....Which henceforth, becomes a universal cosmogony....Or, dare I say it. A CHURCH for the converted faithful.

If you are going to discuss science atleast start quoting scientific websites. Stop trolling.

 

[Total Power]

Firstly: You don't decide what is science & what is not....

Almost every biologist out there endorse evolution..there isnt a single credible biologist out there that dont believe in evolution. You dont decide or your hobby scientists dont decide what science is. The websites you are quoting are not scientific websites, they openly state their purpose is to replace scientific argument with a godly one. I am not sure what you are trying to do here but one good thing about this argument is you have come out of your closet as a closet evolution denier.