Reply With Quote
no. out of roughly 480,000 scientists in america with respectable academic credentials, only 700 gave credence to creation-science
Where was this stat cherry picked from?
"Scientists whose salary relies on agreeing with evolution magazine"?
no. out of roughly 480,000 scientists in america with respectable academic credentials, only 700 gave credence to creation-science
Irreducible Complexity is yet another catch phrase to give up doing science. This exact argument was used with eyes yet now we have a really good pathway to explain how our eyes evolved, and how eyes different than ours arose independently. We will continue to find and explain complex structures we see today. This is what molecular evolutions do, they look for complex structures and attempt to explain how they evolved without going poof. These guys looking for complex machines and concluding "poof", are NOT doing SCIENCE. Do you get this? Because some of these guys are giving up while their colleagues move on.
The bacterial flagellum and much more complex intercellular "machines" like the electron transport system are still being studied. We have already explained how these things are put together on a more basic level DNA---->RNA ------>protein and the clear lack of intelligence behind it. We have already explained things more complex than what these guys are working on like eyes. BTW our retinas are backwards giving us a blind spot. The creator must have liked squid more as their retinas face the correct way. But the intelligent designer went really astray with lenses in almost everything that can form images using EM radiation. (As an aside mouse once stated that we did not come from snails. I find it funny that the creator decided to give some mollusks better eyes)
Darwin himself wrote about exactly what these guys say he got wrong. He said it was a weak point. He himself pointed this out! So some of these guys lack knowlege of what the man wrote. Since Darwin's time this is a delightful area of research for people who do science. And we find out natural selection holds up just fine as ONE MECHANISM for changes in populations of organisms over time. The other mechanisms do not involve miracles as this is not science. If the guys who work on this stuff fall back on a fancy replacement phrase for intelligent design they have given up doing Science and should just state that they give up.
What we still do not know and may never know is how the first cells arose. People are working on this as I type, or, should we contact them and tell them to give up? Some of this stuff leads to very important applications in medicine, I suggest they restrain from the go poof mechanism.
There is so much to continue to work on. If some scientists wish to give up, why don't they just move on to another job? This is what is more perplexing than anything mentioned in Avante's video.
So who designed the designer? Another designer?
TrollTalk Magazine?
How many scientists don't believe in evolution then? Give a percentage.
TrollTalk Magazine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_..._for_evolution
Project Steve[edit]
The Discovery Ins ute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007.[51] This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" pe ion called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the pe ion. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce.[52][53] The pe ion demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1200[54]) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.[55]
DNA did not come about by chance that is very obvious. So that ends any debate about intelligent design as far as I'm concerned and no internet dummy is making a dent. Which also means that we were never fish, how anyone can buy that obvious bull is amazing.
The only real/legit debate is just who was the Designer/Designers or what they were.
Look guys, do any of you think anyone I've shown in those videos would do what you freak do here? None of them would act like little pricks/punks in hiding like you jerks that's why what you say means...0...to me if I read it at all.
Little people, been all over around and through these evolution/DNA before, it's a very old debate, I;m never ever ever going to change my stance....NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes there is a something out there responsible for all this that is very obviouis, no we did not evolve from fish. I will go to my grave believing that and no freak on an interbet site acting re ed is changing anything, ok?
Last edited by Avante; 06-26-2015 at 12:06 PM.
were you just trying to make the most obvious example of circular reasoning possible?
fish to a rat to a monkey
What credentials do I need to analyse the logic of his statements?
More importantly... what are his credentials?
I'm just going with commom sense, ever tried it?
Ish. Bad reasoning from start to finish.
Assertions without evidence and a basic argument from incredulity fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
We have discovered thousands and thousands of planets orbiting other stars. Planets are therefore common in our galaxy, and we have no reason to think this isn't the case in all of the billions of galaxies we can see.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the formation of planets is a naturalistic phenomenon.
Avante here actually does both forms:Arguments from incredulity take the form:
1) P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
or
2) I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
P= We are the result of random natural processes
P=We have a Designer
Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Like a dog returning to his vomit, you keep returning to the same bad arguments.
Restating them 100 times won't make them better or valid on the 101st time.
He's wriiten a book is on talk shows, what have you done? He talks in front of gathering, have you?
So I'm alone in the belief of intelligent design?
You try too hard little guy, ok? I;m not changing my mind, ok?
among scientists who study life and its origins, you are in the 0.15%
nobody is expecting you to. you've shown to be close minded and stubborn. we're just pointing out that your reasoning and logic is hilariously flawed
I totally disagree as do the billions and billions out there who do believe in some God/Supreme Being.
You do know that only about 8% of humamity are atheists, right?
Why does evolution preclude a creator?
you are free to believe whatever you want. we are just pointing out that the reasoning and logic that you've given to defend your belief is incredibly flawed
... and writing a book or giving a talk qualifies him to do what exactly?
David Icke has written books on aliens and our reptilian overlords. Does that make him an expert on reptilian exobiology?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions