For all of you who think you can disprove evolution...

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by StinkyAttic, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. nuh uh! jeeeezus said!
     

  2. Once again, don't believe everything you read. The author from darwinismrefuted :Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar writes his books under the pen name of Harun Yahya. He is a world-renowned man of ideas. Ever since his university years, he has dedicated his life to telling of the existence and oneness of Almighty Allah, to disseminating the moral values of the Qur'an, to the intellectual defeat of materialist and atheist ideologies, to propagating the real Ataturk way and to defending the permanence of the state and the unity of the nation. Harun Yahya - The Author
    How can you not be skeptical of someone who is born into a certain religion who obviously has always had a biased view on it rather than being a independent source of openness. I'm for one, am not convinced.
     

  3. ok so even if this is true, how does it disprove evoution?

    same evidence as above, you just calling scientists liars, your not presenting any actualy evidence that the theory can be fake

    lol. thats all i can say is lol

    if this is true, then again, it doesnt prove evolution is a lie, just that humans lie. the biggest liars in the world are in fact christians

    LOLOLOL yea, he pinned dea moths t the tree so you can see them. so what? whats that got to do with evolution being a lie?

    here is a good question.

    WHY WOULD WE LIE ABOUT EVOLUTION?!

    we dont gain from it unlike religious hiarchy, which farms billions from dumb people

    its just how we think life started based on the evidence provided
     
  4. #6 skiibo, Jul 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2016
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
    Have fun, champ.
     
  5. i've posted that link in multiple threads.
    its great info.
    but rarely gets glimpsed at.
     
  6. [/quote]


    You tell me, why would scientists need to deliberately lie to us for evidence to support their theory?

    It's because they do gain from it.. scientists get enormous amounts of tax fundings for these kind of things..

    You say 'so what' about things, yet you don't realize that these examples of evolution are farces, hoaxes, lies.. they simply never happened yet they're still used as evidence.

    Just look at the whole
    'new lifeform built upon arsenic'.. it was a lie, a swayed article by NASA simply to gain more funding.. Just like the whole Mars meteorite bacteria, a complete fraud, yet once they were found out they still got to keep all their free tax money.

    It's a joke man.. just like the horse evolution, embryology and so on.. even though embryology had been shown to be a deliberate lie over a century ago it's still in text books today! If they took out all the lies and frauds in the text books there would be no evidence for evolution left..
     
  7. If they took out all the lies and frauds in all books, there would be no bibles. And wait, Darwin gained from his theory of evolution and natural selection? How? I would love to hear a valid response. Also, where is embryology proven wrong? Please, link me to your evidence I would love to read it!

    I can easily see scientists lying about their theories, either because they no it's false and want money, like the tax situations you've stated, or because they're obsessed and blinded by the fact that they are just wrong.
     
  8. Haeckel who first drew out the stages of embryology 'proving' evolution was convicted by his own class of fraudulent work and ended up admitting his guilt. You can just google 'Ernst Haeckel fraudulent drawings' and read all about it.. I was sure that alot of people were aware of this.. this is what I mean about how people are deluded with evolution and just follow along because it's the majority belief system.

    And never have I stated to replace science books with bibles.. lol I just don't believe we should still be using lies and hoaxes to support a dying theory.. We should simply put in the books what we know as fact, and leave everything we're uncertain about out and not indoctrinate kids with lies.
     
  9. #11 Sam_Spade, Jul 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 23, 2011
    First off, you refer to "scientists" as if they're a cogent group with a unified purpose, shared responsibility, or enforced methodology. They're not, and that might be, arguably, one of the greatest strength of this epistemological system.

    You have an astounding confirmation bias in play here.

    Actually, public contributions to scientific programs and grants has been on the global decline for some time now. Didn't do your research huh?

    You'll also note that in a few of your examples, these professionals have, as a result, largely been ostracized and had their careers irreparably mangled -- and rightfully so.

    Do you understand how peer-review works? paradigm shifts? If anything, there is enormous academic prestige in revising current understandings. Look at the last 40 years of particle physics, biochemistry or environmental sciences -- to mention only a few disciplines.

    Who still uses them as evidence? Take these examples away completely, and you haven't even taken a single pebble off the mountain of evidence. Is your understanding of evolutionary biology really so limited? Is is the basis of nearly all biological disciplines including pharmokinetics, ecology, zoology, clinical medicine, immunology, the treatment of a wide range of hereditary disease, gene therapy, etc. etc.

    Not really... this is how the academic world works. This is the meat and potatoes of peer review.

    This is how we improve our understanding of the biological world. And I must point out, that nothing was proven to be incorrect. The study may still prove to be correct (or incorrect), they just did not go far enough. This is why the academic world never conclude anything based on a single study, it has to be repeated and confirmed, it has to be understood at a more fundamental level. The authors with blunt and crude in conclusion and inference, but not necessarily wrong. I'm not sure how you yourself inferred "a lie".

    I should also point out that a lesser-publicized but much better peer-reviewed paper on a very similar model was established almost 8 years earlier in Applied and Environmental Microbiology. There has been virtually no credible academic criticisms of this paper.

    You're buying into the very journalistic sensationalism you pretend to rail against. All this and I haven't even mentioned arsenosaccharides.

    Um actually, no. You clearly don't know about this, because NASA actively distanced itself from a scientist making claims they felt unscientific. In fact, dozens of critical evaluations were published in the very academic journals of these "scientists [who] need to deliberately lie to us".

    Embryology is lie? Do share (in another threat, please, preferably as not to derail this one).

    .

    Human Chromosome number 2?

    Just an example, you would do well to check Skiibo's reference.
     
  10. #12 grandmastersmit, Jul 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 23, 2011
    I know scientists aren't a disclosed group, but the scientists telling you all the findings are.. Michiu Kaku, Sagan, Dawkins ect.. these are just celebrity scientists who feed you a biased source of information. You barely ever get to hear from each individual and their own findings as well as personal opinions especially of those against the theory of evolution, because "they're just a stoopid creationists who doesn't understand science."

    And you say it as if there is no more funding for the scientific community anymore lol.. yes things have slimmed down but trust me, Nasa still got to keep their giant funding even after finding out their arsenic lifeform was a deliberate farce.. Guess who actually gets to pay for it all too..

    And what mountain of evidence is there to prove that an elephant, a flea, a blue whale and a blade of grass all came from one single cell that had the likelyhood of coming together as that of a tornado storm piecing together a Boeing 747?

    http://www.discovery.org/a/3935
     
  11. Alright I did, and yes his drawings are disputed by biologists today but how does that make Embryology false?
     
  12. hahaha you're using the discovery institute as your source? They are a prime example of pseudoscience at it's best. They exist for one purpose- not scientific truth, but to push far-right conservative christian principals on people in place of science.
    Please, please, for your own good, before you attempt to argue this any further- READ A BOOK. Stop getting all of your information from the religious and the political conservatives. By the way, every single example of academic fraud that you've pointed out- do you know who caught and exposed the people at fault? It wasn't a bunch of intelligent design "scientists" with degrees in theology. It was other biologists, zoologists, etc. So your point about how scientists are all lying collapses into itself on that basis alone.
     
  13. You speak as though the secret enclave of scientists hand-chose these individuals to go out and be their representatives.

    Quite the contrary, the individuals you mention are a very thin group of high-profile academics who have an uncanny ability to inferace and communicate with the public, they are educators and popularizers, all of which encourage independent critical thinking.

    These individuals became high-profile due to their significant academic accomplishments, as well as a positive response from public consumers of their materials. I myself own multiple books from each of these individuals, but I also have significant detractions from each of them.

    And if by bias, you refer to prevailing academic consensus, then yes you're correct. It's not as if these individuals promote fringe concepts.

    Have you ever tried? There are huge amounts of information of exactly that. There are literally millions of detailed publications, articles and journals you can access.

    Have you ever been to a library?

    Again, you can find those pretty readily. You should rather ask yourself how come their consumption isn't so intense? Now my most important caveat: do you think it could have to do with the innate value of their personal opinions?

    Uh, nope, that's not what I said. If you wish me to repeat it, I will: "public contributions to scientific programs and grants has been on the global decline for some time now"

    I will also source you some empirical data to clear up any ambiguity. By the way, you can research these things yourself. Feel free to seek out a global and national comparative table -- it's easily found, I intentionally omitted it for your sake -- you do not need to wait for me to hand it to you on a silver platter.

    Um, you do realize that NASA was one of seven other institutional contributors for this particular research paper? Out of 12 authors, only 2 of them worked for NASA, and 1 of those 2 only worked with them part time? And this research paper represent less than a minuscule fraction of what NASA actually does and has produced as an institution of areospace, medical and communication technology? To say nothing of their contributions to physics, astronomy, and environmental science.

    There - is - lots - of - it

    Literally tens of thousands of publications, a huge amount of them replicated in labs around the world, some examples on a regular basis, easily available.

    You do know that natural selection is not random... right??



    Also -- you failed to acknowledge SOOOOO much else in my previous post. Please, go back and address the details, otherwise it's clearly not worth my time to continue talking to you. I don't wish to inconvenience the electrons whizzing through our computers and through ISP server stations to indulge in your intellectual dishonesty.
     
  14. How exactly do you get natural selection working of a single cell that isn't fully developed nor can even function..?
     
  15. Self-replication is all that is required.

    Abiogenesis is a different thing entirely.

    Oh and you just broke your own analogy. You might not get a Boeing 747 from a "tornado storm", but you sure do get a lot of flying shit. You get that?

    P.S. -- you still have a lot of catching up to do. Get typing.
     
  16. hahah you act as if self replication is oh so easy.. as if it's just something that happens to come into being by accident.. lol

    You realize that even if a single cell were capable of coming together, it would have to have gotten everything right the first time?

    I love if you cite a website that supports creation then they're obviously dumbasses who know nothing about science.. lol well incase if it hasn't clicked yet, the only real other choice next to evolution/abiogenesis is creation of some sort.. and I'm being called biased? lol

    I can nearly guarantee every piece of evidence anyone will show forth for macroevolution will be adaptation within the kind.. which is simply swapping around pre-existing genetic information and never going to create new kinds due to known genetic limitations. Any mutation known to date has been shown to overall harm the system as a whole and has shown anything but creating new systems and kinds..
     
  17. It is as Sam Spade says...huge confirmation bias.

    I don't think anyone would ever be able to accept evolution if they believed that idea could undermine beliefs that provide their life with meaning or i don't know if they believed accepting a reality of biology would frame them with the same groups as the evil scientist liars and apart from his holy brothers

    I mean you guys could call him/her stupid but it's not about intelligence...just the reality of the confirmation bias all humans have...most of the time people not trying to educate themselves so they can change their attitudes or beliefs most of the time people educate themselves for a little power to have some security or sense of control...I think its possible people could transcend that level but I imagine it would involve a lot of suffering as you would have to abandon a lot ideas that bring comfort and purpose. And don't get me wrong i'm not even talking about just christians, all of us that aren't aware of our nature are at risk...
    edit: including me hehe
     
  18. #20 skiibo, Jul 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 23, 2011

    Look at their methods. Look at their sources. Look at how they come to their conclusions. Look at their motivations. There is absolutely nothing scientific about that group. It doesn't even have anything to do with the fact that they're creationist, it's because they simply do not understand science. They don't use the scientific method. All they do is throw together a bunch of mostly false assumptions and poorly researched arguments that do not hold up to the most basic scrutiny. They simply are not a credible source. They exist for the sole purpose of trying to discredit a theory that they clearly don't understand at the most fundamental levels. How could you possibly expect them to be taken seriously? They're a political tool masquerading as a scientific institution.

    I went on a bit of a rant here, but let me just repeat the overall point of this post- the general opinion held by the scientific community is that the discovery institute is a joke- Again, this is NOT simply because they are creationist. If they were creationist and presented sound scientific arguments, they would be taken seriously and respected, but that is just not the case.
     

Share This Page