Jump to content

Science proves Darwin wrong, omg the Science deniers hate this.


Recommended Posts

Just now, jerra- said:

 

it wasn't so lack of intelligence that hitler had, but sheer evilness.

He certainly was able to get people to follow him and do his dirty work. These type of people have a certain amount of charisma . People just follow . I don’t understand it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Imgreatagain said:

He certainly was able to get people to follow him and do his dirty work. These type of people have a certain amount of charisma . People just follow . I don’t understand it. 

It’s like with a Trump. 
 

Blaming others and bumper sticker slogans are easy to do and easy to remember. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Imgreatagain said:

He certainly was able to get people to follow him and do his dirty work. These type of people have a certain amount of charisma . People just follow . I don’t understand it. 

 

there a were couple who disagreed with him and they got dealt with.

 he used fear as a tool, but many were loyal to him.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pastafarian said:

It was not lightning. . 
 

“Water is a polar molecule. As such, it can dissolve all sorts of materials within it, taking them apart at the molecular level and rearranging them. It is this ability to dissolve and reassemble that gives water its superpower - the ability to create new, complex compounds.”


“Secondly - we need radiation. Radiation was also common on the young Earth. Without an ozone layer, the Earth’s surface was bombarded with UV radiation from the sun. There were also radioactive materials on the Earth’s crust itself.

Water and radiation, the first two ingredients, allow the mixture of compounds that may exist in the young Earth to be disassembled, rearranged, and eventually create the building blocks of RNA and DNA.”

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2020/06/04/new-studies-shed-light-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth/#275f4dad649c

 

THERE ya go - that right there.

 

CERTAINLY no more probable than a Creator - and with less evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Cannonpointer said:

 

THERE ya go - that right there.

 

CERTAINLY no more probable than a Creator - and with less evidence.

There is ZERO evidence that there ever was a creator. So how can it have less evidence than that?

Over a billion years or so, a lot can happen. Organic chemicals  are known to form from methane, water and hydrocarbons. For life to exist, all that has to take place is that a chemical molecule recreates itself.

 

The allegation is that ALL the stars and planets were created at the same time OUT OF NOTHING, by one single creator.

 

I'd say that is FAR LESS PROBABLE.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

There is ZERO evidence that there ever was a creator. So how can it have less evidence than that?

Psst.

 

Hey, dipshit.

 

Ever heard of the bible?

 

The Koran?

 

The Hindu Vedas?

 

The prophets?

 

All of these testify to a Creator.

 

Testimony is evidence, you ignorant swine. How can you POSSIBLY be this stupid, yet have letters?

 

 

Quote

 

Over a billion years or so, a lot can happen.

 

 

And you have faith the earth is billions of years old. No actual proof - just faith, because others whom you presume are smarter than you and more capable than you have assured you that in their wisdom they have deduced that which they cannot prove but can only argue,

 

Wise men saying things do not make those things true, as wise men are often proved fools. Indeed, any truly wise man will assure you that he is a fool who knows nothing. Those who most profess to know are the least secure with the vast not knowing which is the human condition. Your school boy sneers on behalf of the wise are false echos of what never happened.

 

Intelligent people keep an open mind - such as the fellow who argues that perhaps God used evolution to create humanity. The argument is wise because it does not presume to close any door - and the wisest word within the argument is "perhaps." Perhaps you should habituate yourself to using that word more often, shunning certainty and presumption as do the wise.

 

Perhaps you should refrain from ignorantly dismissing thousands of years of evidence as casually as an illiterate savage burns a library.

 

Anyone uneducated enough to believe that science even COMMENTS on the existence of God, much less denies it, has a sophomoric understanding of the discipline - the same unschooled simple-mindedness which allowed Al Gore to make absolute cultists of you folks with a film possessed of little more intellectual integrity than Reefer Madness or Billy Jack. It is not the purpose of science to answer questions in the domain of the metaphysical. Science measures the natural world and leaves the world of the metaphysical to other branches of philosophy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cannonpointer said:

 

I listed SOME BUT NOT ALL of it in the post immediately above this one.

But that ain’t evidence. 
 

Even eyewitness testimony is thrown out in court cuz it is unreliable. It’s the biggest cause of wrongful convictions. 
 

Scientists research, observe and experiment. They even show laymen how they are able to experiment and look for answers themselves. 
 

A Creator can also be scientific ala Big Bang. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pastafarian said:

But that ain’t evidence. 
 

Even eyewitness testimony is throw out in court cuz it is unreliable. It’s the biggest cause of wrongful convictions. 
 

Scientists research, observe and experiment. They even show laymen how they are able to experiment and look for answers themselves. 
 

A Creator can also be scientific ala Big Bang. 
 

 

Oh my! Look at you trying to use your smarts! 
#FAIL 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cannonpointer said:

 

I listed SOME BUT NOT ALL of it in the post immediately above this one.

Oh, nonsense!

Belief is not proof. The Bible, Koran Baghvad Gita and whatever are books written by men. Men's books are not proof, they are opinions.

The general belief of most religions is that God has always existed, is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent and at some point way back when, created the Universe ex nihilo, that is to say, out of nothing.

It is physically impossible to create anything out of nothing.

to create everything out of nothing is far more unlikely than for life to be created out of water. methane and other hydrocarbons and radiation. Lightning was also available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2020 at 7:12 AM, Pastafarian said:

But that ain’t evidence. 
 

Even eyewitness testimony is thrown out in court cuz it is unreliable. It’s the biggest cause of wrongful convictions. 
 

Scientists research, observe and experiment. They even show laymen how they are able to experiment and look for answers themselves. 
 

A Creator can also be scientific ala Big Bang.

 

Scientists do not comment on matters metaphysical. There is no contradiction or argument between religion and science, because they p[erate in different domains of philosophy.

 

And yes, testimony is evidence - it is the buld of all evidence in most criminal and civil trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2020 at 4:06 PM, XavierOnassis said:

Oh, nonsense!

Belief is not proof. The Bible, Koran Baghvad Gita and whatever are books written by men. Men's books are not proof, they are opinions.

 

They're testimony. That's evidence.

 

You cannot prove the earth is billions of years old - you simply have faith because your prophets told you so. Their extra authority over other folks' prophets is nothing more than bias on your part - their stories have more holes than swiss cheese, son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cannonpointer said:

 

Scientists do not comment on matters metaphysical. There is no contradiction or argument between religion and science, because they p[erate in different domains of philosophy.

 

And yes, testimony is evidence - it is the buld of all evidence in most criminal and civil trials.

But what if all they saw was an alien life form who came to earth and told them I’m your God cuz they saw how primitive they were?

 

it coulda happened. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pastafarian said:

But what if all they saw was an alien life form who came to earth and told them I’m your God cuz they saw how primitive they were?

 

it coulda happened.

 

I'm not trying to prove anyone's thesis - just debunking his that science has more evidence than religion when it comes to our origins. I simply doesn't. There are more ways to screw up carbon dating than there are to leave your lover - and carbon dating is the bulwark of their "evidence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2020 at 11:22 PM, 123urout said:

 

Yep...evolutionists were challenged long ago about the absence of transitional fossils so they had to come up with an explanation.

 

They called it "Rapid Evolution" where critters changed from one form to another in a short period of time which they say makes it hard to find transitional fossils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cannonpointer said:

 

I'm not trying to prove anyone's thesis - just debunking his that science has more evidence than religion when it comes to our origins. I simply doesn't. There are more ways to screw up carbon dating than there are to leave your lover - and carbon dating is the bulwark of their "evidence."

Carbon dating is more reliable than it ever was. 
 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pastafarian said:

Carbon dating is more reliable than it ever was. 
 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

 

Your faith is commendable.

 

"More reliable than ever" is an extremely low bar, given its many weaknesses.

 

The claim that the earth is billions of years old hanging on carbon dating extrapolations is the business of faith, not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Cannonpointer said:

They're testimony. That's evidence.

 

You cannot prove the earth is billions of years old - you simply have faith because your prophets told you so. Their extra authority over other folks' prophets is nothing more than bias on your part - their stories have more holes than swiss cheese, son.

Actually, they have proven this, through predictable rate of decay of radioactive elements into non radioactive ones. You simply are ignorant of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Cannonpointer said:

They're testimony. That's evidence

Oh, please. They are gossip at most. Biblical "scholars" tell us that Moses described his own death. There is no evidence in the Bible of the sort than would be acceptable in any court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Cannonpointer said:

 

Your faith is commendable.

 

"More reliable than ever" is an extremely low bar, given its many weaknesses.

 

The claim that the earth is billions of years old hanging on carbon dating extrapolations is the business of faith, not science.

"More reliable than ever"

 

Meaning it wasn't reliable before...now we are required to believe the "New and Improved" version?

 

Now they've added a check mark so it must be true...

 

Perfect Origins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...