non religious opposition to darwinism

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of84
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Dec 12, 2011
 
lol wrote:
"Actually I addressed that a week or two ago if I recall. Fact is that she doesn't dispute evolution the way you do."
she died a couple of days ago, but if u read her books you would realised she was a strong critic of neodarwinism and natural selection.
I was already aware of that, yes.

But I DID address the fact that your repeated appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy no matter how many times you repeat it.

Especially when you consistently use sources inconsistent with each other.

Duh.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Dec 12, 2011
 
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very brave to agree the emperor of natural selection has no clothes. Most people crumble when the full force of rhetoric, argument from authority & confident assertion is brought to bear.
Just so you both know, you're a creationist, shadow (and his sockpuppets) is an anti-science crank who disagrees with creationism and fundamentalist religion.

But he's a fellow brother in the fight against Darwinism so any pseudo-scientific creationist claptrap you wanna feed him he'll gladly eat it up.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Dec 12, 2011
 
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
It is very naive to say Intelligent Design is not testable. The propaganda obviously works, very well too. Let's look at a few examples of where ID is routinely tested.
FORENSIC SCIENTISTs test for intelligent causes Vs natural ones.
• Arson Vs Accidental fire
• Was she pushed or did she fall
• Is it murder or is it death by natural cause
ARCHEOLOGISTS test for intelligence over natural cause
• Is it an arrow head or just a random sharp stone
ASTRONOMERS test ID principles
• Are radio-waves Alien or Natural noise (SETI)
• Is the universe’s habitability related to its observability
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS do it too
• Jerry Coyne
• Russell Doolittle
• Ken Miller
have tested the ID hypothesis that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. That’s why they say it’s not irreducibly complex!
ACADEMIC EXAMINERS test ID
• Is it pligiarised or is original
AVERAGE Joe tests ID
Has my wallet been stolen or have I lost it
The claim that ID is untesteable is not backed by logic, history, science and everyday experience. It’s complete nonsense used to fool gullible masses & keep them blind. You owe it to yourself to wake up & not be fooled so easily. Toddlers can test whether some things happen by themselves or are manipulated. I suspect dogs can do it too but I wouldn't swear to it.
I how pray tell have they been able to test "Goddidit with magic"?

Yes, El, we're well aware that tests for intelligence are possible with humans or other animals on Earth, unfortunately no-one has been able to to do it for the enigmatic "designer" that ID postulates.

P.s.- IC is NOT a positive test for ID but merely an anti-evolution claim, which is followed up with the logical fallacy "If not evolution therefore GODDIDIT (with magic). Even if it were true, it would merely demonstrate that evolution was false, not demonstrate "design" or the designer in any way.

Of course we've been through all this a million times with you already, so are you simply dishonest or just simply stupid?
Shadow

Moulton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Dec 12, 2011
 
"But he's a fellow brother in the fight against Darwinism so any pseudo-scientific creationist claptrap you wanna feed him he'll gladly eat it up."

yes i fight against darwinism, but I rarely quote from creationists, but if you want a decent creationist see john c sanford i chatted to him over email, also see frank marsh a biologist from the 1980s he had the evidence natural selection creates nothing and causes no kind of evolution. these scientists were both qualified in science, and they dont go about spouting jesus nonsence. also see my other thread where i have listed 70 scientists, philosophers or physicists, doctors etc etc who are not religious who have rejected or downgraded natural selection. these folk are the true legends, real scientists unlike darwin.
LGK

Corwen, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Dec 12, 2011
 
Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural selection is metaphysics dressed up as science. It can not be tested and fails to meet the scientific method of making testable predictions and observations.
The idea that the useful features of an organism were "selected" is an assumption rather than a testable idea, this is not science. Also, in nature, female creatures will often mate with "weaker" males. Also Darwins idea of everything being a struggle and fight for existence is not confirmed by what we see in nature. Some species need eachother to survive its called a mutualistic relationship, Darwinists completey ignore all of this.
Dairy ants and aphids have a mutualistic relationship. The ants protect the aphids from possible predators. In return, the aphids provide the ants with honeydew. There is no natural selection, nothing being "selected". Nature is deep co-operation and relationship no struggle etc.
Some flowers have a mutualistic relationship with a specific insect. One species of orchid, keeps its nectar at the bottom of a tube which is between 20cm to 35cm long. It is totally dependent on a species of hawkmoth for pollination. Where is the "natural selection" here? These species need eachother to survive, nothing is being "selected" and their is no "struggle" and "fighting" for existence.
Darwinism is a fairytale, only reason it's supported is becuase it's easy to put in the gap, scientists can get payed without being busy.
Thanks for bringing up that struggle for survival does NOT improve species & is in fact counterproductive. I heard it somewhere, never made notes & then couldn't find it. I'll look more into it.

Natural selection is self-contradictory which is why & how it's believed. Acknowledging the contradiction causes cognitive dissonance then resolved by acquiescence to the "truth" of natural selection. The belief is then maintained by appeal to authority, peer pressure & repetition. It's total nonsense! Nature is deterministic, it doesn't & cannot select. Selection requires agency & is volitional, not deterministic or natural. One has to hand it to crafters who paired “natural” & “selection.” What a stunt?

And another thing, how does one actually test “natural selection?” What are / were the experiments in which it was actually observed as it happened? What was the mechanism?

Obviously none of the above makes creation true but when I say I believe creation, I can put forward arguments/evidence for it. I don’t take opposition as de facto stupidity, I could be wrong!! But Darwinists could never admit their theory is nonsense which it is & that’s why they are rude. Calling opposition religious is just name calling & scare mongering. Who cares what one's religious leaning is? It's facts that count. I discovered Darwinism was nonsense by examining it scientifically & I challenge any Darwinist to produce evidence, not labels - they can't.

Darwinism is dead. We need more people to come forward & stand up to this bully maintained crap. Let's have theories that (a) can be challenged without fear of retribution (b) are likely true. I've heard a "4th Law of Thermodynamics" - sounds interesting.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Dec 13, 2011
 
Shadow wrote:
"But he's a fellow brother in the fight against Darwinism so any pseudo-scientific creationist claptrap you wanna feed him he'll gladly eat it up."
yes i fight against darwinism, but I rarely quote from creationists
Don't talk bollox, you reference them all the time. It is quite possible though that you didn't realise some were actually creationists.
Shadow wrote:
but if you want a decent creationist see john c sanford i chatted to him over email, also see frank marsh a biologist from the 1980s he had the evidence natural selection creates nothing and causes no kind of evolution. these scientists were both qualified in science, and they dont go about spouting jesus nonsence.
Sanford is a YEC crank who rejects evolution on religious grounds, hence he wrote a great big book on apologetics denying reality but didn't bother with a scientific paper to that effect. What he has written for peer-review is not considered by the scientific community to have very much relevance to the validity of evolution.
Shadow wrote:
also see my other thread where i have listed 70 scientists, philosophers or physicists, doctors etc etc who are not religious who have rejected or downgraded natural selection. these folk are the true legends, real scientists unlike darwin.
And like I already pointed out on that thread, an appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy no matter how many times you use it. Not to mention the fact that many of those scientists contradict each other due to different philosophical/theological outlooks, some aren't even qualified to critique evolution (much like yourself) and some aren't even scientists. Not to mention on top of that your info is out of date as at least one of them disagrees with you. You'd be better off quoting the equally as dishonest "dissenters from Darwinism" list from the DI (they have 700), but at least there's a little more consistency there due to most of them being creationists.

So as always your position is incoherent and inconsistent - the only consistent thing about you is that you're against evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Dec 13, 2011
 
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for bringing up that struggle for survival does NOT improve species & is in fact counterproductive. I heard it somewhere, never made notes & then couldn't find it. I'll look more into it.
Natural selection is self-contradictory which is why & how it's believed. Acknowledging the contradiction causes cognitive dissonance then resolved by acquiescence to the "truth" of natural selection. The belief is then maintained by appeal to authority, peer pressure & repetition. It's total nonsense! Nature is deterministic, it doesn't & cannot select. Selection requires agency & is volitional, not deterministic or natural. One has to hand it to crafters who paired “natural” & “selection.” What a stunt?
Can an animal not choose a mate? Does the lion not choose which wildebeest to chase?
LGK wrote:
And another thing, how does one actually test “natural selection?” What are / were the experiments in which it was actually observed as it happened? What was the mechanism?
The mechanisms are numerous and varied. Nature selects, and this is a known fact. For example, hailstone falls on a rocky slope. There are small, medium and large halestones, and there are cracks in the slope. Most of the big ones are too big for the cracks and roll to the bottom. The medium ones get stuck in the cracks so there are less of those at the bottom. The smaller ones are lost in the cracks so there's even less at the bottom. This is natural selection.

Now there's an earthquake and some deer are running away down a rocky slope. Some are lost down the cracks, some survive. This is natural selection.

Your blindness does not change the fact nature selects.
LGK wrote:
Obviously none of the above makes creation true but when I say I believe creation, I can put forward arguments/evidence for it.
Yet we're STILL waiting. But you're a YEC so we'll be waiting until Jesus comes back.
LGK wrote:
I don’t take opposition as de facto stupidity, I could be wrong!
And you usually are.
LGK wrote:
But Darwinists could never admit their theory is nonsense which it is & that’s why they are rude. Calling opposition religious is just name calling & scare mongering. Who cares what one's religious leaning is? It's facts that count. I discovered Darwinism was nonsense by examining it scientifically & I challenge any Darwinist to produce evidence, not labels - they can't.
We can and you can't address it. Still.
LGK wrote:
Darwinism is dead. We need more people to come forward & stand up to this bully maintained crap.
Yeah yeah, Darwinism is dead. 150 year old joke. For creationists it never gets old.
LGK wrote:
Let's have theories that (a) can be challenged without fear of retribution (b) are likely true. I've heard a "4th Law of Thermodynamics" - sounds interesting.
And it'll probably be as relevant to the theory of evolution as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As usual you've avoided addressing your disengenuousness in your last post and moved onto something else. And as usual you still haven't cracked your own "code" yet. And I've been asking you for what - about a year now?

Try again next century El, evolution will once again demonstrate rates of development are not the same across the board and you fundies will still be stuck in the Dark Ages.
The Dude

Moulton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Mar 4, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Can an animal not choose a mate? Does the lion not choose which wildebeest to chase?
<quoted text>
The mechanisms are numerous and varied. Nature selects, and this is a known fact. For example, hailstone falls on a rocky slope. There are small, medium and large halestones, and there are cracks in the slope. Most of the big ones are too big for the cracks and roll to the bottom. The medium ones get stuck in the cracks so there are less of those at the bottom. The smaller ones are lost in the cracks so there's even less at the bottom. This is natural selection.
Now there's an earthquake and some deer are running away down a rocky slope. Some are lost down the cracks, some survive. This is natural selection.
Your blindness does not change the fact nature selects.
<quoted text>
Yet we're STILL waiting. But you're a YEC so we'll be waiting until Jesus comes back.
<quoted text>
And you usually are.
<quoted text>
We can and you can't address it. Still.
<quoted text>
Yeah yeah, Darwinism is dead. 150 year old joke. For creationists it never gets old.
<quoted text>
And it'll probably be as relevant to the theory of evolution as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
As usual you've avoided addressing your disengenuousness in your last post and moved onto something else. And as usual you still haven't cracked your own "code" yet. And I've been asking you for what - about a year now?
Try again next century El, evolution will once again demonstrate rates of development are not the same across the board and you fundies will still be stuck in the Dark Ages.
Please ignore my previous comment, I have no science degree and I am now embracing creationism.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Mar 4, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Please ignore my previous comment, I have no science degree and I am now embracing creationism.
Impersonating another poster on Topix fools nobody and only proves what a lying little turd you are Shadow.
Shaun2000

Accord, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Dec 27, 2012
 
Shadow, great lists. Your research seems to parallel that of Darryl Smith--do you know him? Or are you him--has Forest changed to Shadow?

I maintain a site critical of neo-Darwinism, at takeondarwin and com that has some sources I think you've not included.

I'd like to know what drives you to such investment in the issue. For me it's the wisdom that knowing we evolved promises, that Darwinism conceals from us.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Dec 28, 2012
 
Shaun2000 wrote:
Shadow, great lists. Your research seems to parallel that of Darryl Smith
As in no actual research at all whatsoever?(shrug)

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Jan 1, 2013
 
Creationists get fodder for their mill from some of the theorists which Shadow mentions.

Duane Gish has a practice of gleaning the writings of such theorists, noting any incidence of the word "Darwinism," and pretening that their opposition is to Evolutionary theory as a whole.

In most of his debates, Gish mentions Schadewald and pretends that his views are embraced by all Evolutionists. He verbally presents a Disney cartoon scenario in which Mama Reptile looks down at her nest, very confused because she sees a baby bird there.

Ironically, he once painted this scene in the same debate in which he found supposed flaws in the Archaeopteryx. How can all Evolutionists believe in reptiles abruptly changing into reptiles if all Evolutionists believe that Archy served as a middleman?
anonymous

Las Vegas, NV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Mar 5, 2013
 
Darwinian theory is completely wrong. Well, when it comes to humans anyway. The whole point of darwinism was that we evolved from apes and became what we are today. HOWEVER, they just can't find a missing link. from apes up into early hominids, i bet it will be a suprise to many of you that there isn't a single human bone in the fossil record. because all of the prehistoric men had completely different human bone structures. All the way throughout history the other homids and eventually neandrothals all had extremely thick bones, huge brow ridges, and larger brains. then, out of the blue, WEAK BONES AND SMALLER HEAD YET SOMEHOW SMARTER. ok ya. its just as rediculous as creationism. what we know about history is fabricated and i'm quiet positive that both religion and science have basically been cooking the books. in the history books they mention the egyptian pyramids, but not the sumerians. they mention metal work from 3000 bc, when we know from the sphinx's water erosion marks that the pyramids were there around 7000 bc, and that means most likely that even the egyptians had discovered them, not built them. Wheres that in the books? it will also suprise many that they have dug up perfect metallic spheres with ornate markings on them carbon dated around 3 BILLION YEARS! wheres that in the books? when they show early man, they put huge primate heads on these skinny human bodys. because darwninists know damn well they can't explain human evolution. Watch lloyd Pie-everything you know is wrong on youtube.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Mar 5, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
Darwinian theory is completely wrong. Well, when it comes to humans anyway. The whole point of darwinism was that we evolved from apes and became what we are today. HOWEVER, they just can't find a missing link. from apes up into early hominids,
As far as our human ancestry:

Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Mar 5, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
it will also suprise many that they have dug up perfect metallic spheres with ornate markings on them carbon dated around 3 BILLION YEARS!.
Class?

Who can tell us what in the above statement leads us to conclude that "anonymous" has his head up his ass?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Mar 5, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
Darwinian theory is completely wrong. Well, when it comes to humans anyway. The whole point of darwinism was that we evolved from apes and became what we are today. HOWEVER, they just can't find a missing link.
You appear to be arguing from information 100 years out of date. If you want a missing link we can give you fifteen, along with linkys to more:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

You will note also that the fossil record is not the only evidence presented either.
anonymous wrote:
from apes up into early hominids, i bet it will be a suprise to many of you that there isn't a single human bone in the fossil record. because all of the prehistoric men had completely different human bone structures. All the way throughout history the other homids and eventually neandrothals all had extremely thick bones, huge brow ridges, and larger brains. then, out of the blue, WEAK BONES AND SMALLER HEAD YET SOMEHOW SMARTER. ok ya.
Actually it's comparative anatomy that's used to identify bone structure.

Otherwise they would not be able to class those prehistoric men as ***HOMINIDS***, would they?

:-/
anonymous wrote:
its just as rediculous as creationism. what we know about history is fabricated and i'm quiet positive that both religion and science have basically been cooking the books.
Actually there is very little that is ridiculous as creationism.
anonymous wrote:
in the history books they mention the egyptian pyramids, but not the sumerians.
I'm sure that history books on the Sumerians do in fact exist.

Otherwise how would you have heard of them?
anonymous wrote:
they mention metal work from 3000 bc, when we know from the sphinx's water erosion marks that the pyramids were there around 7000 bc, and that means most likely that even the egyptians had discovered them, not built them. Wheres that in the books?
I've heard the water erosion MAY date the Sphinx from around 7,000 to 15,000BC - at a stretch. That's not the case with the pyramids though.
anonymous wrote:
it will also suprise many that they have dug up perfect metallic spheres with ornate markings on them carbon dated around 3 BILLION YEARS! wheres that in the books?
It's not in the books.

Not any reputable ones anyway.

After all, the MOST you could date anything using carbon dating techniques would be a mere 100,000 years. And that's pushing it. 50-70,000 is the norm.
anonymous wrote:
when they show early man, they put huge primate heads on these skinny human bodys. because darwninists know damn well they can't explain human evolution. Watch lloyd Pie-everything you know is wrong on youtube.
You mean this guy who you couldn't even spell his name right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Pye

Perhaps you were just hungry. I get that.

If you notice he is not actually qualified in the slightest to speak of what he speaks. This is why no-one takes him seriously.

And possibly the most tragic thing about this thread resurrection is that it might wake our old buddy LGK up.

:-(
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Mar 5, 2013
 
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as our human ancestry:
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
You can't find THE missing linky!!!

Wait... how many's that again?

:-/

Naw, sorry, still not enough.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Mar 5, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Class?
Who can tell us what in the above statement leads us to conclude that "anonymous" has his head up his ass?
Of course.

These are obviously the ultimate fate of Rimmer's Chinese worry balls transported back to Earth due to a time dilation effect.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0684176/

The ornate markings are actually from repeatedly grinding those balls like they've never been ground before.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Mar 5, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
Darwinian theory is completely wrong. Well, when it comes to humans anyway. The whole point of darwinism was that we evolved from apes and became what we are today. HOWEVER, they just can't find a missing link. from apes up into early hominids, i bet it will be a suprise to many of you that there isn't a single human bone in the fossil record. because all of the prehistoric men had completely different human bone structures. All the way throughout history the other homids and eventually neandrothals all had extremely thick bones, huge brow ridges, and larger brains. then, out of the blue, WEAK BONES AND SMALLER HEAD YET SOMEHOW SMARTER. ok ya. its just as rediculous as creationism.
You state that there are no missing links and then you proceed to describe the changes within the links in the above paragraph.

Further, your assessment of the changes is way off. Yes, there were early hominids with thick bones in the skull (particularly in the jaw and crown where the muscles for chewing attached).

As we developed tools and tamed fire, we moved away from chewing hard fibrous roots and raw meat to the more easy to consume processed plant material and cooked meat.

That increase in calories along with a decrease in the need for chewing muscles is what freed up our skulls to expand for larger brains.
in the history books they mention the egyptian pyramids, but not the sumerians.
In the history book on my desk, it talks about the American Civil War, but it doesn't talk about WWI. That's because not every book can cover every part of every subject every time.
they mention metal work from 3000 bc, when we know from the sphinx's water erosion marks that the pyramids were there around 7000 bc, and that means most likely that even the egyptians had discovered them, not built them.
Turn off the history channel. It's not history it's entertainment.
Wheres that in the books?
History books only talk about real things, not "ancient alien" bullshit.
it will also suprise many that they have dug up perfect metallic spheres with ornate markings on them carbon dated around 3 BILLION YEARS! wheres that in the books?
Well, seeing as the maximum range of carbon dating is ~ 65,000 years, that would surprise me quite a bit.

This is like me saying, I measured a road with a 12 inch ruler and discovered it was a hundred million miles long.
when they show early man, they put huge primate heads on these skinny human bodys. because darwninists know damn well they can't explain human evolution. Watch lloyd Pie-everything you know is wrong on youtube.
You are watching human actors who are wearing make up ON TOP OF their actual skulls.

We have yet to develop a way to put make up on an actor and end up with a SMALLER skull than we started with
anonymous

Las Vegas, NV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Mar 6, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You appear to be arguing from information 100 years out of date. If you want a missing link we can give you fifteen, along with linkys to more:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
You will note also that the fossil record is not the only evidence presented either.
<quoted text>
Actually it's comparative anatomy that's used to identify bone structure.
Otherwise they would not be able to class those prehistoric men as ***HOMINIDS***, would they?
:-/
<quoted text>
Actually there is very little that is ridiculous as creationism.
<quoted text>
I'm sure that history books on the Sumerians do in fact exist.
Otherwise how would you have heard of them?
<quoted text>
I've heard the water erosion MAY date the Sphinx from around 7,000 to 15,000BC - at a stretch. That's not the case with the pyramids though.
<quoted text>
It's not in the books.
Not any reputable ones anyway.
After all, the MOST you could date anything using carbon dating techniques would be a mere 100,000 years. And that's pushing it. 50-70,000 is the norm.
<quoted text>
You mean this guy who you couldn't even spell his name right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Pye
Perhaps you were just hungry. I get that.
If you notice he is not actually qualified in the slightest to speak of what he speaks. This is why no-one takes him seriously.
And possibly the most tragic thing about this thread resurrection is that it might wake our old buddy LGK up.
:-(
hes not qualified because his career has been ruined SIMPLY BECAUSE the ideas he pushes. I love the little factoids you point out about his name. Classic, when you have nothing else on me other than his name, it really shows how arrogant darwinists twist stuff because it cant be explained. Idk if you know of what is going on right now, but a VERY QUALIFIED scientist named melba ketchum has sequenced several genomes and we have a complete published paper on the truth about sasquatch. There is severe ridicule in the scientific community about her, because she has challenged the mainstream theory of both normal evolution, and religion. Theres no denying what she has proven because it was confirmed by several highly qualified labs such as major universities. Obviously, we wont hear of this in the media for a LONG TIME because other scientists are analizing the journal and the media is treating it stupidly right now. We have confirmed that science didnt want to publish at first because it would ruin their ego and career (admitted by one of the journals lawyers) not because the data was false. If u look it up this issue you will see so much false controversy and even a couple of british disimformationists who attack her for charging 30$ for civilians (this not scientists) to buy the paper.(Btw, im not familiar with any of these links that you think i got this from)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of84
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

13 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min HOG_ the Hand of God 111,963
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 11 min Mugwump 171,254
Intelligent Design - Deist style (Dec '09) 1 hr FREE SERVANT 51
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr TurkanaBoy 133,137
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... 3 hr TurkanaBoy 1,245
Science News (Sep '13) Fri positronium 2,822
Ann Coulter: Idiot (Sep '11) Jul 10 DanFromSmithville 358
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••