Started By
Message

re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution

Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:03 pm to
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
117998 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:03 pm to
quote:

I have no doubt you will come full circle one day Roger



I think not. Please give me some links where someone believed in evolution whole heartedly, but then came to the conclusion that evolution is false? I'm sure you'll have some wackjob, but give me a biologist or a peer reviewed study showing that evolution is fake.
Posted by beejon
University Of Louisiana Warhawks
Member since Nov 2008
7959 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:05 pm to
quote:

Of course not, but for unqualified people like yourself to tell qualified people they are wrong for no reason than your religious belief is misguided.


The atheistic view of Darwinism isn't wrong simply because of religious reasons. Darwinism isn't proven by scientific methods and is virtually impossible to create the complexity and variety of life we observe today.

quote:

Creationists always call us scientists arrogant, but is there any greater arrogance than telling someone they are wrong without even remotely understanding the subject in question?


There are plenty of scientists who debunk and reject the Darwinistic guesses and suppositions for the complexity and variety of life.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
117998 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:05 pm to
quote:

Darwinistic evolution isn't a fact. It's based on a series of guesses and suppositions.



Just continuing to spout off ignorance and using Darwin as an insult. Until you watch this in full, I'm ignoring your absolute hogwash: LINK
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46657 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:06 pm to
quote:

Darwinistic evolution isn't a fact. It's based on a series of guesses and suppositions.


Can you explicitly list the specific parts of evolutionary theory which you object to, and give the scientific reasons for why you object to them?

You claim to believe in "microevolution", so you must accept at least some of the ideas.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
117998 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:07 pm to
quote:

There are plenty of scientists who debunk and reject the Darwinistic guesses and suppositions for the complexity and variety of life.



Not that you understand what this is, but could you please give me a peer reviewed study that shows this?
Posted by mattloc
Alabama
Member since Sep 2012
4405 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:08 pm to
Never said I didnt believe, just dont buy the darwinistc veiw ....I have no strong opinion on the matter to be honest. I just like to call out the dudes who pretend they have all the answers
Posted by beejon
University Of Louisiana Warhawks
Member since Nov 2008
7959 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:09 pm to
quote:

give me a biologist or a peer reviewed study showing that evolution is fake.


LOL. That's funny.

When scientists submit their findings to these peer groups, the bias against those who debunk Darwinism is almost always against them. Peer reviewed studies produce results that only agree with the peers, Darwinists in this case.

There are many scientists who reject the guesses and suppositions of Darwinistic evolution.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46657 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:09 pm to
quote:

There are plenty of scientists who debunk and reject the Darwinistic guesses and suppositions for the complexity and variety of life.


This is simply not true. There are not "plenty" of biologists, geneticists, etc. that reject evolution and none who have successfully debunked it.
Posted by mattloc
Alabama
Member since Sep 2012
4405 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:11 pm to
Just give us a paragraph summary of your beloved link please
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
117998 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:11 pm to
quote:

LOL. That's funny.

When scientists submit their findings to these peer groups, the bias against those who debunk Darwinism is almost always against them. Peer reviewed studies produce results that only agree with the peers, Darwinists in this case.

There are many scientists who reject the guesses and suppositions of Darwinistic evolution.



Yeah, I'm sure that's how your snake oil salesman of a Southern Baptist Preacher explained it to you, who hasn't been in a classroom since he dropped out in the 10th grade.
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 6:11 pm
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
117998 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:12 pm to
quote:

Just give us a paragraph summary of your beloved link please



I've been explaining it throughout this thread, but he can put it better than I can and is a magnificent storyteller. Seriously, watch it.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46657 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:13 pm to
Also, Ill repost a select bit of evidence that beejon never responded to last night


Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13, an event that occurred after our split from them at our last common ancestor.

Human infants exhibit the same palmar grasp reflex all apes use to cling to the hair on their mothers backs despite it serving no beneficial purpose in humans.

We have the same skull suture lines as apes and ancestral human fossils.

We have viral DNA IDENTICAL to that seen in chimps.

For God sakes, we even have a damn vestigial tail

And on and on and oon
Posted by mattloc
Alabama
Member since Sep 2012
4405 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:13 pm to
Here we go again with the consensus argument.....better grab your wallet beejohn
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46657 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:14 pm to
quote:

When scientists submit their findings to these peer groups, the bias against those who debunk Darwinism is almost always against them. Peer reviewed studies produce results that only agree with the peers, Darwinists in this case.

There are many scientists who reject the guesses and suppositions of Darwinistic evolution.


Again, this isnt how science works.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
117998 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:15 pm to
quote:

Here we go again with the consensus argument.....better grab your wallet beejohn



A consensus argument is a peer reviewed study. Give me one of those, and I may take you seriously.
Posted by beejon
University Of Louisiana Warhawks
Member since Nov 2008
7959 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:15 pm to
quote:

There are not "plenty" of biologists, geneticists, etc. that reject evolution


Here's a few thousand scientists who reject Darwinism.

LINK
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
117998 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:16 pm to
quote:

Here's a few thousand scientists who reject Darwinism.

LINK



And where is their study?
Posted by beejon
University Of Louisiana Warhawks
Member since Nov 2008
7959 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:16 pm to
quote:

Again, this isnt how science works


I agree. But the peer review demand is a joke.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
117998 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:18 pm to
quote:

I agree. But the peer review demand is a joke.



I have a feeling that almost all doctors, scientists, lawyers, and basically anyone with any degree of a higher education would disagree with you. It's the one thing you can't produce, so it's clearly bullshite. Out of the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed studies, why can't we get ONE that disproves evolution? I don't think that is asking much.
This post was edited on 4/13/14 at 6:19 pm
Posted by mattloc
Alabama
Member since Sep 2012
4405 posts
Posted on 4/13/14 at 6:19 pm to
For gods sake the vestigal arguments have been debunked again and again

However, research has shown the supposed vestigial organs or structures of the human body—such as the appendix, the tonsils and the tailbone—are not "vestigial" at all, but rather are quite useful and purposeful body structures.

The appendix, probably the prime example of a supposed vestigial organ, is now known to have an important immunological function, especially in the first years of life.

"The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).

The tonsils, long thought to be useless, are now known to have a useful function in the immune system. They act as a defense mechanism against infection of the upper respiratory tract and perform an important service to the digestive system by filtering out alien materials that may enter the body through the mouth or the nose.

"Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).

The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.

Jump to page
Page First 37 38 39 40 41 ... 49
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 39 of 49Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on X and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter