There is no debate concerning this topic by those that understand it. Period.
If some religious fundamentalists wish to put their fingers in their ears to any knowledge that contradicts a literal interpretation of a particular flavor of bronze aged mythology, they have every right to do so. However, it also leaves the door open to call those people out as having left the field of discovery. Completely worthless within discussions of knowledge.
Meh.
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history, Do You Agree?
American☆Atheist
2012/05/27 08:14:39
|
|
|||||
|
13 votes
|
|
34% | |||
|
21 votes
|
|
55% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
11% | ||
Top Opinion
-
socokid 2012/05/27 12:33:48
To be honest, I dont know any religious people who dont believe in evolution, they simply accept the evidence and believe that evolution is a process created by god.
I dont see why you wouldnt be able to believe in evolution and have a faith.
I think better of myself than that.
Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." Darwin admitted the same fact.
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble rig...
Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." Darwin admitted the same fact.
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.
Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.
Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape man! The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as many evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.
Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."
Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And so it is.
Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as "speculation," based on faith," similar to theories of "little green men," "dead," "effectively dead," "very flimsy," "incoherent," and a "myth." Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don't need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire.
World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently died), with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen Rose, Texas, "...all this makes evolution impossible." And so it does.
We still have many people, scientists included, who deny climate change. I believe in climate change too. And I will continue to lean toward the theory of evolution. We may never be able to fill in all the gaps. Thank you for all the information you presented. I appreciate it.
Evolutionists had to change the basic premise of evolution with puntuated equillibrium to explain the fossil record. When you look at the fossil record there are much less (any?) gradual changes (transitionary fossils) as the theory predicts than there are fully formed species found in the layers of strata with no precursors.
Most major phyla first appear in the Cambrian Explosion period with no precursors.
So instead of saying that evolution takes place extremely slowly over hundreds of thousands of and millions years, now they say it takes place in extreme bursts, because it's the only way to explain the actual fossil record and keep the theory alive.
Their nice flowing tree of evolution now looks like some weird cactus.
Yet, they still teach the theory as invented by Darwin despite scientific evidence to the contrary.
How did life originate?
The theory begins after life is already present.
I know all about the discredited theory of abiogenesis. But for those who don't...
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
[ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-]
noun Biology .
The now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
http://dictionary.reference.c...
..."Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.”
Do you know about the second law of thermodynamics?
The theory you mentioned is discredited.
Who cares who flips burgers at Micky Ds?
When creationists start mewling about the defects in science I feel like telling them to move to an island with no doctors, no electricity, no food but that which they grow themselves and no pharmaceuticals.
It is the height of hypocrisy to deny scientific discoveries in an area that touches your culturally-induced psychosis while taking full advantage of them in other areas of your life.
If I had my way, they'd have to put up or shut up.
Because if a religion came forward to did a paper in a major scientific journal that conclusively proved that people don't evolve, and we all appeared here in our present for just over 6000 years ago and debunk everything scientists believe they would win a nobel prize and be a hero to millions of believers and make evolution rethink things.
However giving up on science and declaring that the game is over and their god(s) (as many people, not just Christians make this claim) did it. Just for the fact someone imagines they already have the answer does not instantly mean that you can't be wrong.
And using a book that uses circular reasoning to back its own claims doesn't help the case either.
And something I always wonder about is if creationism, ID, or whatever people call it these days to hide its religious ties is even if it is true, it does not offer an explanation of anything. Just saying "My god(s) did it" isn't a end all. I've yet to meet a believer that goes into detail on HOW their god did.
Evolution can explain a how life changes, genetic mutations, generic drift, and natural selection. Where as suppor...
Because if a religion came forward to did a paper in a major scientific journal that conclusively proved that people don't evolve, and we all appeared here in our present for just over 6000 years ago and debunk everything scientists believe they would win a nobel prize and be a hero to millions of believers and make evolution rethink things.
However giving up on science and declaring that the game is over and their god(s) (as many people, not just Christians make this claim) did it. Just for the fact someone imagines they already have the answer does not instantly mean that you can't be wrong.
And using a book that uses circular reasoning to back its own claims doesn't help the case either.
And something I always wonder about is if creationism, ID, or whatever people call it these days to hide its religious ties is even if it is true, it does not offer an explanation of anything. Just saying "My god(s) did it" isn't a end all. I've yet to meet a believer that goes into detail on HOW their god did.
Evolution can explain a how life changes, genetic mutations, generic drift, and natural selection. Where as supporters of ID, however, just say "god" or "intelligent designer" and then act as if they have explained everything.
And I can't count the number of times I have told rabid creationists that evolution does not directly address the origin of life, it only really addresses how life changes AFTER it was created.
Before you call something evil and strive to have to removed from public discourse, shouldn't you know something about it first?
Dogmatic thinking is dogmatic thinking and some people prefer it to an extreme. Reality bubbles are what they are.
News-flash, numbnuts, EVERYTHING soon becomes HISTORY! lmao
I'm not masochistic and always try to avoid pain, whenever possible, and I think the dying gasps of humanity will be incredibly painful. We'll go out, not with a bang but with a whimper.
OTOH, the doing of it would be interesting.