The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1622 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you're still here...
"Meh, shrug, hum bug"
Still going on about Page 1?
Whatchoo got there?
Usual debunkable nonsense?
C'mon
It's a new year
How about some dazzling evo-science instead of dead beat redundant nonsense
It's only debunkable if and when you can debunk it. You never have.

Let us know when you finally arrive at the starting line, Russ.
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1623 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only debunkable if and when you can debunk it. You never have.
Let us know when you finally arrive at the starting line, Russ.
Evolution has never been observed within living populations, there are no transitional types, and there are no biological processes for evolution.

The bottom line is that evolution has never been observed or proven by empirical science.

Evolution is simply assumed to be true.

Evolution does not even meet the definition of a theory.

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or event based on proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by independent researchers.

In fact, evolution is not even worthy of the term hypothesis, which is an educated guess, based upon observation, but has not yet been proven.

Your compatriot Anthony Flew, converted to Christianity from atheism, "At the most recent debate in 2004, at New York University, he declared that he ‘now accepted the existence of a God’(p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence,

‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’(p. 75). "

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-...

Richard (Rick) Errett Smalley (1943–2005), M.A., Ph.D.(Princeton), was the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy at Rice University.1 He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 for his discovery of (and his research on) a totally new allotrope (form) of carbon. This comprised unique soccerball-shaped molecules he named buckminsterfullerenes, nicknamed buckyballs,
was furious by the shoddy science under-girding evolution. His wife (a biologist, who had to come to terms with the same issues) wrote:

“I remember him pacing the bedroom floor in anger saying evolution was bad science. Rick hated bad science worse than anything else. He said if he conducted his research the way that they did, he would never be respected in the scientific community.”

He also claimed that Darwinian evolution had been given its death blow due to the advance of genetics and cell-biology, and that it was now clear that biological evolution could not have occurred.

Spike Psarris has a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts and has done graduate work in Physics. He was formerly an engineer in the United States military space program. He entered the job as an atheist and evolutionist. He ended up becoming a creationist first and then a Christian.

Science supports Creation.
Not evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1624 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
Evolution has never been observed within living populations, there are no transitional types, and there are no biological processes for evolution.
The bottom line is that evolution has never been observed or proven by empirical science.
Evolution is simply assumed to be true.
Evolution does not even meet the definition of a theory.
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or event based on proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by independent researchers.
In fact, evolution is not even worthy of the term hypothesis, which is an educated guess, based upon observation, but has not yet been proven.
Evolution has been demonstrated, as shown on page 1.
Russell wrote:
Your compatriot Anthony Flew, converted to Christianity from atheism
Who? His theological opinions are irrelevant. Theology is irrelevant.
Russell wrote:
it was now clear that biological evolution could not have occurred.
So they claim.
Russell wrote:
Science supports Creation.
Not evolution.
How does science support invisible magic Jewish wizardry?

Or to put it another way, why are you lying and pretending that evidence is relevant to Goddidit with magic?
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1628 Feb 3, 2013
Still not convinced???

No, course not...!!

Smart arse responses, and the "meh, shrug, humbug" awaited.

Nothing new....

C-14 has been found in coal and diamonds....there should be none!

Radioisotope dating suffers from unprovable assumptions----fatally flawed techniques----yet evolutionists contend as fact what they CANNOT prove.

Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with Creation----expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the Universe from an extremely hot, dense phase.

Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, AND magnetic field reversals and decay.....

Young earth
Young creation...

Well actually, no.
6000 years is terribly old.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1629 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
Still not convinced???
No, course not...!!
Smart arse responses, and the "meh, shrug, humbug" awaited.
Nothing new....
C-14 has been found in coal and diamonds....there should be none!
Radioisotope dating suffers from unprovable assumptions----fatally flawed techniques----yet evolutionists contend as fact what they CANNOT prove.
Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with Creation----expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the Universe from an extremely hot, dense phase.
Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, AND magnetic field reversals and decay.....
Young earth
Young creation...
Well actually, no.
6000 years is terribly old.
Russell, how big of a tard are you?

There is no atmospheric C14 in coal or diamonds. Do you think that the atmosphere is the only source of C14?

What are the "fatal assumptions" of radiometric dating. I bet you are wrong again. Tard.

Abundant daughter products are not evidence of accelerated decay. What an idiotic statement to make. Do you know we can see decays occurring millions of years back and the rate is the same then as it is now?

Russell, you can make all the claims you want, but without evidence you lose. I can back up my claims with evidence, I know you can't.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1630 Feb 3, 2013
Russell, radiohaloes have been debunked too. If you paid any attention you would know that.

I can tell that you get your information from Creatard sites. Please don't use creatard sites, they lie. Even when they are caught they keep on lying. Some of the ones that are not quite so idiotic tell you not to lie. But even they can't help telling a doozy or two.
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1631 Feb 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, radiohaloes have been debunked too. If you paid any attention you would know that.
I can tell that you get your information from Creatard sites. Please don't use creatard sites, they lie. Even when they are caught they keep on lying. Some of the ones that are not quite so idiotic tell you not to lie. But even they can't help telling a doozy or two.
Are you a cretard then, you know....being a liar an' all?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1632 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has never been observed within living populations, there are no transitional types, and there are no biological processes for evolution.
The bottom line is that evolution has never been observed or proven by empirical science.
Evolution is simply assumed to be true.
Evolution does not even meet the definition of a theory.
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or event based on proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by independent researchers.
In fact, evolution is not even worthy of the term hypothesis, which is an educated guess, based upon observation, but has not yet been proven.
Thank you for this "Beginners Guide to Creationist Fantasies".

Amid all your thoroughly debunked waffle, let me just point out that you your claim:

"A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or event based on proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by independent researchers."

is false. Hypotheses are not proven. Hypotheses are tentative theories, that grow into accepted theories when they are verified multiple times by independent researchers. As evolution has been, for a century and a half. What does verify mean? It means that the theory predicts particular observations and these are then confirmed directly in nature or by experiment. Tiktaalik, Homo erectus, and the mutationally driven adaptation of Lenski's bacteria are all evolutionary predictions.

Your tiny though credible list of evolution deniers merely share the same problem - incredulity at self organised complexity, usually a failure to understand evolution is an incremental process.
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1633 Feb 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Russell, how big of a tard are you?
There is no atmospheric C14 in coal or diamonds. Do you think that the atmosphere is the only source of C14?
What are the "fatal assumptions" of radiometric dating. I bet you are wrong again. Tard.
Abundant daughter products are not evidence of accelerated decay. What an idiotic statement to make. Do you know we can see decays occurring millions of years back and the rate is the same then as it is now?
Russell, you can make all the claims you want, but without evidence you lose. I can back up my claims with evidence, I know you can't.
Over 100 geochronometers indicate a "young" earth

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1634 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Over 100 geochronometers indicate a "young" earth
No, not one does. Maybe over 100 "geochronometers" can be misinterpreted to indicate a young Earth, but all that tells us is that the interpreters are idiots.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1635 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a cretard then, you know....being a liar an' all?
I don't have to lie. I have science on my side.

All you have is a book written by bronze age sheep porkers.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1636 Feb 3, 2013
Hey Russell, give me your best "geochronometer". I bet I can bust it to smithereens.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1637 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
Richard (Rick) Errett Smalley (1943–2005), M.A., Ph.D.(Princeton), was the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy at Rice University.1 He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 for his discovery of (and his research on) a totally new allotrope (form) of carbon. This comprised unique soccerball-shaped molecules he named buckminsterfullerenes, nicknamed buckyballs,
was furious by the shoddy science under-girding evolution. His wife (a biologist, who had to come to terms with the same issues) wrote:
“I remember him pacing the bedroom floor in anger saying evolution was bad science. Rick hated bad science worse than anything else. He said if he conducted his research the way that they did, he would never be respected in the scientific community.”
He also claimed that Darwinian evolution had been given its death blow due to the advance of genetics and cell-biology, and that it was now clear that biological evolution could not have occurred.
Spike Psarris has a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts and has done graduate work in Physics. He was formerly an engineer in the United States military space program. He entered the job as an atheist and evolutionist. He ended up becoming a creationist first and then a Christian.
Science supports Creation.
Not evolution.
If you are going to quote the stories of eminent converts to ID, you will have to be more two sided about it. I am not impressed by argument from authority, which is essentially what you are trying.

Still, if you insist. Have you have heard of Project Steve by any chance?

"Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism....

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 51% of the listed Steves being biologists.[4]

The "Steve-o-meter" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[5] As of 6 April 2012, Project Steve got a signature from its 1200th Steve."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1638 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for this "Beginners Guide to Creationist Fantasies".
Amid all your thoroughly debunked waffle, let me just point out that you your claim:
"A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or event based on proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by independent researchers."
is false. Hypotheses are not proven. Hypotheses are tentative theories, that grow into accepted theories when they are verified multiple times by independent researchers. As evolution has been, for a century and a half. What does verify mean? It means that the theory predicts particular observations and these are then confirmed directly in nature or by experiment. Tiktaalik, Homo erectus, and the mutationally driven adaptation of Lenski's bacteria are all evolutionary predictions.
Your tiny though credible list of evolution deniers merely share the same problem - incredulity at self organised complexity, usually a failure to understand evolution is an incremental process.
Man, you are way behind the times
I'm not sure whether to waste my time addressing what you have said, or to just leave it, and walk away.....

All debunked before
Right here on this forum

Anything new, chaps?
Or same ole, same ole?
BORING!

Evolutionary wishful thinking does not magically turn evolution into science, Bud
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1639 Feb 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Hey Russell, give me your best "geochronometer". I bet I can bust it to smithereens.
Ha ha
You almost sound desperate?

Got nothing better to do?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1640 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Over 100 geochronometers indicate a "young" earth
Ahhh, a YEC. At least those who argue for some intelligence in the evolutionary process may deserve some discussion of their talking points. But YECs are in full on retreat against everything we know in biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, and chemistry.

In other words, if you are a completely anti-science medievalist, why didn't you just say so?
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1641 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to quote the stories of eminent converts to ID, you will have to be more two sided about it. I am not impressed by argument from authority, which is essentially what you are trying.
Still, if you insist. Have you have heard of Project Steve by any chance?
"Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism....
However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 51% of the listed Steves being biologists.[4]
The "Steve-o-meter" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[5] As of 6 April 2012, Project Steve got a signature from its 1200th Steve."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
You're pretty well meaning...
But
You need to "know your enemy" a bit better

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1642 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Man, you are way behind the times
I'm not sure whether to waste my time addressing what you have said, or to just leave it, and walk away.....
All debunked before
Right here on this forum
Anything new, chaps?
Or same ole, same ole?
BORING!
Evolutionary wishful thinking does not magically turn evolution into science, Bud
What times are these? The times when a large swathe of the American population, terrorised and fearing the future like never before, addicted to fast-food easy solutions and even turning their religion into a Cinnabon, abandon the pillars of scientific and technological excellence that fueled their rise, in favour of returning to primitive medieval fantasies?

Instant Answers, just add Christ. And don't forget to bury your brain; it might come to conclusions your weak heart cannot cope with.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1643 Feb 3, 2013
Sadly the once brilliant Richard Smalley did become an old Earth creationist in his latter life, even he was not as imbecilic as our Russell. His loss of mental faculties is shown by his demand that “The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that 'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved."

Anyone who understands the least little bit of logic always knows it is the person making the positive claim that must provide evidence for his claim. His attempt to shit the burden of proof shows that deep down inside he knew he was wrong.

By the way, evolutionists are more than happy to provide evidence for their claims. In fact they know they have to. Check out the professional papers if you don't believe me.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1644 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha
You almost sound desperate?
Got nothing better to do?
Nope, bored. I am going to bed in about a half an hour so if you post something tonight there may not be a response until tomorrow.

Just giving you fair warning not to take a lack of an answer as a victory.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Agents of Corruption 149,351
Brainwashed: Christian school taught Intelligen... 22 min emrenil 2
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 54 min emrenil 176,826
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Kong_ 16,689
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 1 hr Gillette 608
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 7 hr Gillette 5
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr Denisova 140,950
More from around the web