An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Community Team, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

While there is certainly proof that mutations do occur in nature; There is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory of evolution at this time (for over the past 150 years of "Dino-digging"). Including the sedimentary column.
18
27%
There probably is evidence to support this theory, yet scientist are at a loss to explain it appropriately.
17
26%
Scientist are great at making shit up when they have no evidence to prove something that is false to begin with.
8
12%
I believe in Santa. He's a real person that lives all the way deep at the north pole and brings me presents every year. The presents prove that he's real. I also leave him milk and cookies to snack on and while I don't ever see him, I just know with all my heart, that he is the one who eats all the cookies and milk. Or, I wish I had a dogasaur like Dino.
23
35%
 
Total votes : 66

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby SirSebstar on Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:21 am

lol at basic facts. Anno Domini, the year of our Lord. Also the BC/AD scheme was not even concieved for the first hunderdS of years after the supposed birth.

It does seem like its the same tactic all over again. Pure ignorance and disregard for prior knowledge if it does not fit your way of seeing things. The difference between the bible and a theory is that the theory strifes to be (dis)proven where the bible is just a collection of fantasy tales and misrepresentations (or careful editing) of past events
User avatar
Major SirSebstar
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:51 am
Location: SirSebstar is BACK. Highscore: Colonel Score: 2919 21/03/2011
Medals: 95
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (23) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (9) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (4)
General Contribution (11)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby jonesthecurl on Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:22 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:Other than the accounts in the bible, which are not eye-witness accounts(and which are not exactly independent evidence anyway), do you have any historical sources for Jesus? Or any of the events of his life? I'm not asking you to prove that he is the way, the truth, the son of god, or anything else -just that he existed. I'm not even saying that he didn't, just that you have to prove that the evidence for his physical existence is "overwhelming".
"Overwhelming evidence" I believe you said.
btw, If you're going to count the AD/BC thing as proof, will you accept all other dating systems as proof of the events they commemorate?
oh, and incidentally you have the BC/AD dating wrong anyway.
After his death on the cross and Before Christ existed!


See, you are misquoting me, yet again. It's just a slight wording or two but still it's enough to mislead the majority of the people in just the same way that Darwinists have misrepresented the fact and mislead the majority of the people right from preschool about the theory of evolution.

Now I will ask you to find that quote where I said. "the evidence for his physical existence is "overwhelming."" And then we can continue OK. Thank you.

This is the same tactic by the way, that evolutionist use to claim that the theory of evolution is true when it is not. OK. Thank You very much!

Oh and as many times as we need to go through this exercise, we will go through this exercise until we learn to speak the same language and use the same definitions for the same words that we use. Thank You.


In fact there is overwhelming historical and archeological evidence to support the stories of the Bible.


Is Jesus' existence not a story in the Bible? I had an idea he was mentioned there once or twice.

Also still waiting for:

Scientists or scientific texts which agree that "The Universe is made up of three element";
Secular historians that confirmed the 30 pieces of gold which Judas was paid;
The testbooks and museums in which your signature pic is shown;
Science books/scientists (not "the Bible, a science book") which back up THIS doozee
Only God existed. Time and Space and Matter were all created things. Things which He created and from nothing brought into existence, the universe. Even Science agrees to that.
;
And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse
Medals: 19
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby crispybits on Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:58 pm

I wonder who said this:

"Today...new knowledge has led to the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory."

show


Image
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby comic boy on Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:38 pm

Viceroy said ;
'' O sure the world hated true Christians enogh to killed them (sic). The Catholics were the ones doing most of the killing actually ''
Viceroy I find your take on history fascinating , for clarity would you mind answering the following questions.;
1) The above quote relates to which historical period exactly 100 AD , 200 , 300 ?
2) With regard to question 1 who exactly were ' True Christians ' and ' Catholics ' ?
3) At the same period who would you define as Jews or Pagans ?
4) What was the religion of Jesus at both his birth and death.
5) Was it ' True Christians ' or ' Catholics ' who codified the New Testament and assembled the various documents now known as the bible.
6) You say that nobody disputed the '4 gospels ' but what of the so called heretics such as the Cathars , were they not persecuted and was it ' Catholics ' or 'True Christians ' who objected to these heretical beliefs ?
7) What of the many gospels that were not included in the Canon , was it ' Catholics ' or True Christians ' who decided what was or was not to be included in the New Testament ?
Thanking you in advance for a prompt and precise response.
Comic
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London
Medals: 28
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby tzor on Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:32 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Well Duhhhh! We count the years AD and BC, After his death on the cross and Before Christ existed!


=D> I nominate this for Second funniest statement ever made about the Bible, right after the statement "If King James English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." =D>

Minor nit pick. AD is Latin for "Year of the Lord." Technically, it is supposed to represent the year he was born. Math was hard back then; the more modern estimates places his birth at 3 BC. But A.D. One was definitely not the year Jesus died. Your system would have around 36 years not accounted for, as opposed to the annoyance of having -1 leap right into 1 without going to zero.

Edit: correction: the gap would actually be massive (you did say "existed"). "Before Abraham was, I AM." That means that even the first day of creation would not be "BC."
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class tzor
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Medals: 8
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby sundance123 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:02 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:we will go through this exercise until we learn to speak the same language and use the same definitions for the same words that we use. Thank You.


Perhaps we could start by agreeing on a definition for the word "Viceroy63"

I propose: a foolish person who believes the moon is made of non-cheese.

Are there other meanings for this word?


Viceroy63 wrote:
(1) Human-like fossils have been found in rocks, caves, dry lakes, glaciers, and other sites

(2) Some fossils have been found inside caves, while others have been found near building remains

(3) These fossils have been found in different spots around the world

(4) These fossils have been found in a variety of rock types and at varying depths

(5) Most fossils have been found as scattered bits and pieces

(6) Only a tiny number of complete skeletons have been found

(7) There is a great deal of variety in these human-like fossils

(8) Tools that could have been made by humans have been found with many of these fossils

(9) The tools have been constructed of various materials - stone, bone, wood, antler and metal

(10) The age of fossils and materials older than recorded history (about 2,500 years) are not known

(11) Fossils and materials of unknown age have dates estimated using indirect methods


Oh yeah I have been studying these vital facts about evolution for a week now and I have applied for a PhD from a prestigous online printing company. I plan to enter on the register of scientists (whatever the hell that is? (OMG I just proved that hell exists why else would there be a word for it. (Jesus Christ! God is real too))).

Hmmm Viceroy63 appears to be a verb. Cos I just Viceroy63'ed logic.
User avatar
Captain sundance123
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:29 pm
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (4)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (15) General Achievement (11) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:50 pm

The Top Four Reasons to believe in evolution or...
Why it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in an intelligent designer.
This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.jameswatkins.com/evolution.htm

"Truth" 4: Evolution is possible over billions and billions of years
Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

"If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it. In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That's why even though some people who aren't educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simply don't believe it anymore."
-Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin

Image

"Truth" 3: Life began as simple, single-celled organisms
Darwin wrote his theory in the 19th century when it was believed that a cell was just "a homogeneous globule of protoplasm." They did not know about DNA or the complex processes that go on inside a cell. Today, we know that there is no such thing as a "simple" cell.

"Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer.
-Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin

Biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) says that modern science has made the Darwinian explanation of the origin of complex life forms much less believable than it was in Darwin's day.In the 19th century, it was believed that a cell was just "a homogeneous globule of protoplasm." They did not know about DNA or the complex processes that go on inside a cell.

The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:

Behe starts with the example of a mousetrap; he claims that a standard mousetrap is "irreducibly complex". Such a mousetrap consists of:

(1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base

(2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing
the little mouse

(3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and
the hammer when the trap is charged

(4) a sensitive catch that releases the hammer when slight pressure
is applied

(5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and charged hammer
(there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)

Behe then continues with his logic as to why this system is "irreducibly complex":

Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it...

A mousetrap cannot "evolve" slowly, bit by bit. All of the parts must be in place at the same time. The same with such things as DNA

"Truth" 2: Evolution is a fact supported by scientific evidence upon which every scientist agrees.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
-Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.

"[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support . . . "
-Michael Denton, molecular biologist

(Over 400 scientists are "convinced by new scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution is deficient.")

"Truth" 1: So-called "intelligent design" is biblical creationism in disguise.
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs . . . The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design . . . has no justifiable foundation . . . . Most people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature"
Michael Behe, molecular scientist from Lehigh University
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996

I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed. Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. They cannot even mention the possibility that—as Newton or Galileo believed—these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.
Ben Stein, author, actor, film-maker
EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

[Personal Note]
Why this prevalent, negative and hostile emotion should exist in the ignorant that will not except the fact that all of nature cries out in full voice to be heard by all, "CREATOR!" (Damn it!); Has only one explanation in my understanding. The Holy Bible has depicted this hostile mentally long before any one ever came to realize it in themselves. And it is this...

"Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."
-Romans 8:7

If this does not explain all of the hostilities towards me and the truth of these words in this article, then I don't know what can possibly explain such hateful and spiteful words and all the foul language and hurt emotions? I simply couldn't figure it out.
Viceroy63
-End Personal Note.
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:37 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:00 pm

Guys, it's time we gave up. Over 400 scientists said so. And there's no way they're wrong about anything, because they support my side.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (3)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:15 pm

Viceroy63 wrote: The Top Four Reasons to believe in evolution or...
Why it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in an intelligent designer.
This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.jameswatkins.com/evolution.htm

"Truth" 4: Evolution is possible over billions and billions of years
Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

"If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it. In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That's why even though some people who aren't educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simple don't believe it anymore."


True, but what do you believe the significance of this is?

See, no one in the scientific community really has a problem with the idea that God might have influenced things.

Further, this concept of randomness is just not accurate. Nothing in the universe is purely random in the mathematical sense. Everything results from preceding action and is limited by certain perameters. Take the coin bit... the coion can land up, down or on its edge, but cannot be inside out in this universe. When talking about something like the very beginning of everything we understand so little it is as if we are trying to flip a coin in a universe where the real answer is to turn the coin inside out.
Viceroy63 wrote:-Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin
"Truth" 3: Life began as simple, single-celled organisms
Darwin wrote his theory in the 19th century when it was believed that a cell was just "a homogeneous globule of protoplasm." They did not know about DNA or the complex processes that go on inside a cell. Today, we know that there is no such thing as a "simple" cell.

"Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer.
Just because Darwin thought something doesn't make it fact, or even necessarily what scientists today believe.

The real progression I learned when I was in school was from blue-green algae, which does exist and is a type of very simplistic cell, in the sense meant above, to more complex types, which also exist in our world today. However, one mistake commonly made is thinking that modern single-celled creatures such as Euglena are somehow one of these more simplistic cells. They are not.


Regardless, you are debating something that has no answer, is not provable and has no real and true bearing on evolution. Evolutionary theory is works whether there is a God steering it all or not.

Any attempt on the part of your.. or anyone else, to try and claim that there is a "God did it" OR "evolution means purely random" is just wrong.

Beyond that, as noted above, even the most ardent of atheists is not claiming that evolution is purely random. In fact, evolution says nothing about the very beginning of life. It details what happened after life was already here and mostly after a time when there were already several forms of life existing.

Viceroy63 wrote: -Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin

Biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) says that modern science has made the Darwinian explanation of the origin of complex life forms much less believable than it was in Darwin's day.In the 19th century, it was believed that a cell was just "a homogeneous globule of protoplasm." They did not know about DNA or the complex processes that go on inside a cell.

The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:

Behe starts with the example of a mousetrap; he claims that a standard mousetrap is "irreducibly complex". Such a mousetrap consists of:

(1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base

(2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing
the little mouse

(3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and
the hammer when the trap is charged

(4) a sensitive catch that releases the hammer when slight pressure
is applied

(5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and charged hammer
(there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)

Behe then continues with his logic as to why this system is "irreducibly complex":


Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it...

A mousetrap cannot "evolve" slowly, bit by bit. All of the parts must be in place at the same time. The same with such things as DNA

Nice idea, it just has nothing at all to do with evolution or how scientists feel life on Earth evolved through time. There is little similarity between hammers and springs and basic chemical bonds.

Strange that you seem so unaware of what evolutionary theorists say for someone who claims to have found irrefutable proof of its falsity. None of your arguments matter, they just don't have anything to do with evolution.

Viceroy63 wrote:"Truth" 2: Evolution is a fact supported by scientific evidence upon which every scientist agrees.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
-Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

First off, how does being employed by the atomic energy commission as a physiologist qualify him to be an expert in evolution??? (hint -- it doesn't, and if this were some hobby pursuit, then there should be, would be, some reference to that, not to his employment )

Beyond that, its suspicious that this is the ONLY quote by this guy .. and yet is repeated over and over and over and over.

I did find at least one of your "sources" You seem to quote this site a lot.
http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp


That said, this is rather interesting" from here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Way_of_the_Master
Living Waters Publications (LWP) acts as an online store for WOTM.

Their fact-checking department appears understaffed. For example, LWP has published tracts featuring a quote from a Dr. T. N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."

Not only is the opinion of a single nuclear scientist of questionable relevance, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian does not appear to be a real person.

Having read that, I tried looking for the guy myself. In several pages, I could not find a single direct reference to him.. .just repeats of this quote in various anti-evolution websites.


Viceroy63 wrote:-Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research. "[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support . . . "


This provides some insight:
(source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 922AATdW6c )
Since the Revised Quote Book stated that "Prof. Bounoure" had served as the "Director of Research" at the "French National Centre of Scientific Research" I wrote the Center [The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique = The National Center for Scientific Research]. I asked them about the exact origin of the quotation and received the following reply, dated March 3, 1995 (translated by professional French translator, Jacques Benbassat, with some minor editing and paragraphs re-arranged in an easier to follow order):


Dear Mr. Babinski,
The new director general of the CNRS [i.e., the National Center for Scientific Research in France], Mr. Guy Aubert, has given me your letter of December 6, 1994, in which you requested several points of information concerning the quotations by French scientists, concerning the theory of evolution.

Here is the information I was able to gather:

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.

The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."

[Obviously, Bounoure was expressing his distaste at those in his day who argued over the "principles" of evolution, "how" it took place, whether via Lamarckian or Darwinian "evolutionism." Bounoure probably thought that such "principles" were not worth all the "discussions and disagreements" since they were not well understood, were yet to be discovered, and perhaps might not be discovered, i.e., if supernatural intervention into the evolutionary process was accepted. Bounoure was a theist. He also probably thought that more practical scientific investigations needed to be pursued and less "discussions and disagreements." - ED.]


As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions.
[In my letter to the CNRS I also asked whether the quotation might not have originated with another French scientist, "Paul Lemoine," to whom the televangelist James D. Kennedy has incorrectly attributed the quotation. And here was the answer they gave to that question. -- ED.]


As far as Paul Lemoine is concerned, he is indeed a "famous French scientist" since he was the director of the National Museum of Natural History. In the Encyclopedie Francaise [French Encyclopedia, circa 1950s], volume 5, he wrote the following: "It results from this explanation that the theory of evolution is not exact ... Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe, but which they uphold for the people. It is necessary to have the courage to state this if only so that men of a future generation may orient their research into a different direction." And this quotation often circulates among anti-evolutionist groups.
Paul Lemoine was an atheist, and he was against the theory of evolution because he felt it was not a good explanation of the origin of living beings and by showing its limits risked to discredit materialism. Although this point was not very clear we believe that when he spoke of "the theory of evolution" he was actually addressing the explanation of specifically [how] evolution [occurred] and not the [more general idea] of evolution itself.

The problem [of the origin of the quotation] apparently stems from the confusion in the discourse of these three scientists between the fact of evolution and the explanation of this fact. None were creationists but they all felt that the explanations given for the understanding of evolution were insufficient, even totally inexact.

This is the information that I am able to give you. if you would like to have more details, you could write to Jean Staune, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine, 1 rue Rene Panhard - 75013 Paris. This institute is associated with our own: The National Center of Scientific Research.

Very truly yours,
Marie-Antoinette de Lumley


HMMM.. and yet, soooo many creationists sites persist in posting this quote and referencing this guy.
Viceroy63 wrote: -Michael Denton, molecular biologist
Viceroy63 wrote:(Over 400 scientists are "convinced by new scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution is deficient.")

"Truth" 1: So-called "intelligent design" is biblical creationism in disguise.
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs . . . The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design . . . has no justifiable foundation . . . . Most people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature"


Michael Denton does appear to exist and to be a real molecular biologist. However, while he sees some problems with current evolutionary theory, he apparently still describes himself as an evolutionist.

IN other words Viceroy, he is not providing "irrefutable proof that evolution is false" -- he is providing some disagreement on specific pieces of the theory, while accepting the overall idea.
Viceroy63 wrote:
Michael Behe, molecular scientist from Lehigh University
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996


I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed. Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. They cannot even mention the possibility that—as Newton or Galileo believed—these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.
Ben Stein, author, actor, film-maker
EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed


This is probably the most insane argument posed by the intelligent design crew.

It is very true that science teachers are not allowed to mention God... they are also not allowed to tell students who bring it up, who do believe in God that their belief is false. They are to teach science, not religion. Evolution is science theory. Saying "God did it" is not.

Per the "discrimination" bit... science is full of such "discrimination". I have mentioned before the cases of the Veliger larvae (a phase of crab larvae) and bacteria that cause ulcers. If you go into old science books, you will see something called a "veliger" classfied as a parasite of crab. A few scientists suggested that they might actually be juvenile crab, but a leader in the field at the time disagreed... so they were ignored or laughed at. Eventually, proof was documented and published. (I believe some technology advances helped as well)
When the nobel prize was awarded for the discovery that bacteria cause ulcers, they immediately gave credit to a colleague who had initially put forward the idea, but who could not get funding and had to drop his research.

The TRUTH is that science is rife with disputes and disagreements. Why should young Earthers be different? The demand from science is that they present data, real and true data that can be verified and questioned. They have not done so. They just wish to claim that anything short of absolute and irrefutable proof of evolution means that their theory is OK. This just is not how science or any real track of inquiry works.

Its not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.



ANYWAY -- At least one of these scientists doesn't exist/ Two others exist, but are simply not supporting your theory, not really disproving (or truly attacking as false) evolution and the third.. well, seems to be whining that everyone is not just simply agreeing and accepting his ideas.. but instead of going out and finding more proof, he works on a movie for non-scientists, trying to convince people who don't understand evolution that evolution is false.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:29 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'


Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:39 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'


Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?


Does nothing to prove your cause. That is the part you keep missing.

Again... saying evolution is wrong is not enough to prove young earth ideas are even possibly correct, never mind enough to prove that they are correct.

Showing that some "evolutionary scientists" have erred or committed fraud doesn't prove that the entire field is bogus. It shows that there are mistakes and frauds everywhere.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby comic boy on Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:49 am

Viceroy I asked very politely for you to clarify some historical points that you had made , why did you not answer my questions ?
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London
Medals: 28
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:24 am

comic boy wrote:Viceroy I asked very politely for you to clarify some historical points that you had made , why did you not answer my questions ?


Sorry If I ignored you along with the rest of the questionnaires designed to draw me away from the topic of the theory of evolution being a hoax. Honestly if you have a question that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, then may I suggest that you start a new thread on that question and send me an invite to that thread and I would be happy to answer. But I do ignore hundreds if not thousands of questions on this thread that are off topic to this thread of the theory of evolution being a Hoax. OK. So you are not the only one.

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'


Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?


Does nothing to prove your cause. That is the part you keep missing.

Again... saying evolution is wrong is not enough to prove young earth ideas are even possibly correct, never mind enough to prove that they are correct.

Showing that some "evolutionary scientists" have erred or committed fraud doesn't prove that the entire field is bogus. It shows that there are mistakes and frauds everywhere.


Scientist have been showing the flaws with the theory of evolution and that it is not even possibly (Mathematically or any other way) right from the start for over the past 150 Years.

Darwin himself claimed that life evolved by way of small ACCUMULATIVE changes over a very long period of time. He never could find evidence to support his claim and as a disclaimer stated that this could be the best real objection to his theory. So that right from the start this very scientist began the process of disproving his own work. Why should other scientist come along and force the issue?

Darwin had hoped that future evidence and findings would be made in time, to support his theory, but time and time again, advancements in science only disproved his theory of evolution one by one, and not supported it.

Darwin's understanding of the complexities of the human cell were not sufficient at the time and so he could not even address the fact of how life would begin in the first place to form from "Mud," (and possibly electricity) "Life," in the first place.

It was in fact believed at the time, that spontaneous animation of non living things was even possible. They prove this by showing maggots on dead meat and never even realized that they came from microscopic eggs left by fly's. They did not have full understanding at the time.

But just five years after the publication of the "Origin of Species" the famous French Biologist, Louis Pasteur, Scientifically refuted these myth's that laid the ground work for evolution and showed that Maggots did not rise from dead meat and neither did frogs from the Mud pools.

Pasteur, after much experimenting reach this very lengthy conclusion that...

"Can matter organize itself? NO!
Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves."
Louis Pasteur
Fox & Dosa
Origin of LIfe p. 4-5

A Russian Scientist of the 1930's who tried to create cellular life stated this...

"Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.
Alexander Oparin."
Origin of life p. 136.

In more modern times we find this statement...

"Today as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest problem that we had when we entered the 20th century: How did life Originate on earth?"
Jeffrey Bada
Earth Magazine, February, 1988

How can we then build on a theory of evolution when we can't even answer the basic question of how life began in the first place? By creating Hoaxes?

Scientist need to first answer the question of life before they can proceed to show how Evolution is real and not by creating any Hoaxes. As it stand, every piece of evidence purported by science to prove evolution is either a Hoax or a grave misunderstanding of the facts.

And I am not the one stating this but am quoting scientist. If you read the Original Post and all the comments I have made, I provide many links to Scientist who are saying this and not me.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby comic boy on Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:47 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
comic boy wrote:Viceroy I asked very politely for you to clarify some historical points that you had made , why did you not answer my questions ?


Sorry If I ignored you along with the rest of the questionnaires designed to draw me away from the topic of the theory of evolution being a hoax. Honestly if you have a question that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, then may I suggest that you start a new thread on that question and send me an invite to that thread and I would be happy to answer. But I do ignore hundreds if not thousands of questions on this thread that are off topic to this thread of the theory of evolution being a Hoax. OK. So you are not the only one.

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'


Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?


Does nothing to prove your cause. That is the part you keep missing.

Again... saying evolution is wrong is not enough to prove young earth ideas are even possibly correct, never mind enough to prove that they are correct.

Showing that some "evolutionary scientists" have erred or committed fraud doesn't prove that the entire field is bogus. It shows that there are mistakes and frauds everywhere.


Scientist have been showing the flaws with the theory of evolution and that it is not even possibly (Mathematically or any other way) right from the start for over the past 150 Years.

Darwin himself claimed that life evolved by way of small ACCUMULATIVE changes over a very long period of time. He never could find evidence to support his claim and as a disclaimer stated that this could be the best real objection to his theory. So that right from the start this very scientist began the process of disproving his own work. Why should other scientist come along and force the issue?

Darwin had hoped that future evidence and findings would be made in time, to support his theory, but time and time again, advancements in science only disproved his theory of evolution one by one, and not supported it.

Darwin's understanding of the complexities of the human cell were not sufficient at the time and so he could not even address the fact of how life would begin in the first place to form from "Mud," (and possibly electricity) "Life," in the first place.

It was in fact believed at the time, that spontaneous animation of non living things was even possible. They prove this by showing maggots on dead meat and never even realized that they came from microscopic eggs left by fly's. They did not have full understanding at the time.

But just five years after the publication of the "Origin of Species" the famous French Biologist, Louis Pasteur, Scientifically refuted these myth's that laid the ground work for evolution and showed that Maggots did not rise from dead meat and neither did frogs from the Mud pools.

Pasteur, after much experimenting reach this very lengthy conclusion that...

"Can matter organize itself? NO!
Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves."
Louis Pasteur
Fox & Dosa
Origin of LIfe p. 4-5

A Russian Scientist of the 1930's who tried to create cellular life stated this...

"Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.
Alexander Oparin."
Origin of life p. 136.

In more modern times we find this statement...

"Today as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest problem that we had when we entered the 20th century: How did life Originate on earth?"
Jeffrey Bada
Earth Magazine, February, 1988

How can we then build on a theory of evolution when we can't even answer the basic question of how life began in the first place? By creating Hoaxes?

Scientist need to first answer the question of life before they can proceed to show how Evolution is real and not by creating any Hoaxes. As it stand, every piece of evidence purported by science to prove evolution is either a Hoax or a grave misunderstanding of the facts.

And I am not the one stating this but am quoting scientist. If you read the Original Post and all the comments I have made, I provide many links to Scientist who are saying this and not me.


My questions and those of others were directly related to what YOU wrote in YOUR thread , It has become obvious that you are an ignorant hypocrite but at least show a semblance of decency and respect. As for the ' hundreds ' and 'thousands' of questions you claim to have fielded . it would appear your maths skills are about as retarded as your understanding of Biology , if you are going to bullshit to that degree I advise you to confine your audience to those who cannot read or count .....your local creationist group perhaps :lol:
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London
Medals: 28
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Frigidus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:39 am

This thread is a great read. Hilarious stuff.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:53 am

Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'


Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?


Does nothing to prove your cause. That is the part you keep missing.

Again... saying evolution is wrong is not enough to prove young earth ideas are even possibly correct, never mind enough to prove that they are correct.

Showing that some "evolutionary scientists" have erred or committed fraud doesn't prove that the entire field is bogus. It shows that there are mistakes and frauds everywhere.


Scientist have been showing the flaws with the theory of evolution and that it is not even possibly (Mathematically or any other way) right from the start for over the past 150 Years.


Proof?
Hint-- math and science work with what IS. If something happens, then it is, by definition, not impossible.

As I noted earlier, your basic premise is wrong becuase you assume the claim is that evolution is a random process and that is not a claim being made by anyone except young earthers trying to refute it. This is known as a strawman argument -- you invent something and then disprove it, claiming it has bearing on the debate when it actually does not.

Get it now? Any argument about "math not allowing random evolution" is pointless because evolution, with or without God is not random.

Beyond that, I as I just said, math and science both explain what is. If reality disagrees with the math or science, then the math and science are wrong. People have erred in their observations, in calculations, etc... reality doesn't get reinvented, the math and science do.

Viceroy63 wrote:
Darwin himself claimed that life evolved by way of small ACCUMULATIVE changes over a very long period of time. He never could find evidence to support his claim and as a disclaimer stated that this could be the best real objection to his theory. So that right from the start this very scientist began the process of disproving his own work. Why should other scientist come along and force the issue?



I see, so in your view the fact that this guy did not have all the answers over 200 years ago means that there just is no answer? Guess what? Newton knew nothing at all about Quantum physics, either!

See, science progresses. As I and others have said that Darwin was the first to publish the theories of evolution doesn't mean that everything he said about it was correct.

Viceroy63 wrote: Darwin had hoped that future evidence and findings would be made in time, to support his theory, but time and time again, advancements in science only disproved his theory of evolution one by one, and not supported it.


Let's try this again. What, specific premise of evolution do you believe have been disproven over and over?
... because, other than pointing out that scientists have made errors in the 200 years of investigation of evolution and that fraudulant scientists have made evolutionary claims, you have not really presented any true criticism... just utter and complete misunderstandings and representations of evolution.

(hint.. if you want to know what evolutionary theory REALLY says, read evolution proponents, not Dr Morris.. who really doesn't understand evolution at all).
Viceroy63 wrote:
Darwin's understanding of the complexities of the human cell were not sufficient at the time and so he could not even address the fact of how life would begin in the first place to form from "Mud," (and possibly electricity) "Life," in the first place.


First, evolution does not address how life initially began, not really. It deals with it changing after it already developed.

Second, the whole field of genetics was not discovered until much later... and a LOT of genetic science has only become known in our own lifetimes. (well, mine anyway.....) Recombinent DNA, for example was brand new in the early 80's.

So, again, you say the theory could not explain everything and Darwin further could not explain why the process might work... OK, but what does this have to do with disproving the theory of evolution, really? You have miraculously proved it is a theory.. that is, not fully proven, at least in Darwin's time. You have disproven nothing.
Viceroy63 wrote:
It was in fact believed at the time, that spontaneous animation of non living things was even possible. They prove this by showing maggots on dead meat and never even realized that they came from microscopic eggs left by fly's. They did not have full understanding at the time.
Not entirely true. That is, many people believed this, but it was already controversial .... and remained so for some time even after Pasteur came along. Still, true or not, what does this have to do with disproving evolution?
Viceroy63 wrote:
But just five years after the publication of the "Origin of Species" the famous French Biologist, Louis Pasteur, Scientifically refuted these myth's that laid the ground work for evolution and showed that Maggots did not rise from dead meat and neither did frogs from the Mud pools.

He showed that life begets life. That shows that new life comes from old, which is necessary for evolution to happen, sure.

HOWEVER, when you claim that he actually proved that abiogenesis is impossible, you err. Its a common error, but a big one. Proving that life originates from life does disprove the idea that all life came abiogenetically. Further study proved that even lower organisms come from other life. Proving that life DOES come from other life, though is not the same at all as saying it is impossible for it to arise from any other means. Also, there is a big difference between saying that higher life evolves from other life and saying that no life, ever, in all time, ever came from abiogenesis.

If your argument is "abiogenesis doesn't happen". Well... then the Bible is wrong, too!!!

When you talk about the very, very beginning we have 2 possibilities. Either life always existed or it somehow came from nothing. Both the Bible and scientists tend toward the second, that it somehow came from nothing. Neither is able to fully explain the process.


(oh, and the modern ideas about the very origin of life do involve abiogenesis, but have less to do with these early theories as modern chemistry has to to with Alchemy)
Get it?

Viceroy63 wrote:
Pasteur, after much experimenting reach this very lengthy conclusion that...

"Can matter organize itself? NO!
Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves."
Louis Pasteur
Fox & Dosa
Origin of LIfe p. 4-5

A Russian Scientist of the 1930's who tried to create cellular life stated this...

"Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.
Alexander Oparin."
Origin of life p. 136.

In more modern times we find this statement...

"Today as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest problem that we had when we entered the 20th century: How did life Originate on earth?"
Jeffrey Bada
Earth Magazine, February, 1988

How can we then build on a theory of evolution when we can't even answer the basic question of how life began in the first place? By creating Hoaxes?

Begin with evolution doesn't answer the beginning of life at all. It just says that what we have today evolved from prior species... and that has been largely )(though not entirely) shown. That is, we do know that some species emerge from some other species. We do not know how each and every species today alive on earth or ever alive evolved or originated. We definitely do not know how initial life began... yet.
Viceroy63 wrote:
Scientist need to first answer the question of life before they can proceed to show how Evolution is real and not by creating any Hoaxes. As it stand, every piece of evidence purported by science to prove evolution is either a Hoax or a grave misunderstanding of the facts.

Nope, this is EXACTLY backwards. A story begins in the beginning. Science, however, starts with what is known and then goes from there. This means that science can say a LOT about things alive and observed today. It can say a good deal about animals that managed to leave fossil evidence for us to study. It can say little about the remainder. We do know there is a LOT missing in the history of Earth. More and more of those gaps get filled in yearly, even daily. Understanding the entire complex involves many, many sciences and studies randing from chemistry to physics to geology to biology and paleontology. EACH field offers a piece that are then put together into what is still not a whole.

There are creatures existing today that are virtually unknown, still. A new mammel was just found a year or two ago. Last year or the year before, a remaining ivoery bill woodpecker was found, previously thought to be extinct. The Ceolocanth, which offered a who range of proof in evolution was only discovered alive a few decades ago.

We know a lot about cows and dogs. We know less about Tigers and Polar Bears. We know almost nothing, still about many life forms. In some cases, we know more about creatures that no longer exist than about some living creatures. There are no doubt creatures alive today that we have not even found to identify.. never mind study anything about them. Still, fossils only provide certain types of information. They are limited and so is our knowledge. The further back, in general, the less we know.. but that is not exact, because, for example sea creatures were preserved so well in some cases that we can learn almost as much from the fossils as if they were sitting alive in front of us. Other creatures, as I noted already, do exist alive today, but are yet to be found and identified by any scientist.

We know almost nothing about the origin of life on Earth... almost nothing. Claiming that this has to be understood for evolution to be true pretty much proves that you know nothing of how science works, never mind evolution.

Viceroy63 wrote:
And I am not the one stating this but am quoting scientist. If you read the Original Post and all the comments I have made, I provide many links to Scientist who are saying this and not me.

You ARE stating it, sorry... take responsibility for what you quote! That is, yes.. acknowledge the quote, but it's up to you to do the research to find out if the person actually exists, if they really did say what is claimed... AND if the quote is appropriate or something taken out of context.

I mean, if I say "the sky is not green today"... you can claim I said the words "the sky is green", and sure, I did, but did I really give that meaning?

Of the people you quoted, 1 very likely just doesn't exist, 2 did not dispute evolution at all, but are repeated by young earthers out of context to make it seem as it they do dispute evolution (and you accuse all of science of being dishonest!). The last was basically whining that his views were not taken seriously by science... well, that's how science works. NO ONE is taken seriously, particularly not anyone suggesting a major change in thinking, until they actually go out and prove what they say is true.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2568
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AndyDufresne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:19 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Scientist have been showing the flaws with the theory of evolution and that it is not even possibly (Mathematically or any other way) right from the start for over the past 150 Years.





--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25528
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby crispybits on Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:08 pm

Image
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby SirSebstar on Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:17 pm

The King James Bible said it best
"There is no God."

Also about christians" They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

well done bible, some truth at last
User avatar
Major SirSebstar
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:51 am
Location: SirSebstar is BACK. Highscore: Colonel Score: 2919 21/03/2011
Medals: 95
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (23) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (9) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (4)
General Contribution (11)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AAFitz on Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:23 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:But I do ignore hundreds if not thousands of questions on this thread...


If not millions and billions.
john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

http://i.imgur.com/zU8yLiU.gif
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7237
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 84
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby / on Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:43 am

In the passage of Genesis depicting the origin of the earth, God uses a definition of the word meaning "kind" that would be most accurately described as a creature that can make offspring, this definition of "kind" does not refer to "species" in its historical context.


20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.




This must be true in order to be logically constant with the records of Noah.


13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.” 22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.


Studies show that for the size of Noah's ark; for the mathematics of the vessel and the weight of the animals with supplies to sustain them would, by the laws of physic, only be possible if "kind" refers to a representative of Genus or Family, rather than species.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was- ... imals.html


Divergent species within the same genus can often interbreed, but the resulting animal is typically sterile; such as is the case between lions and tigers. Given this information, the animals on Noah's ark would logically need to be a common ancestor before this divergence, ergo some evolution must have taken place afterwards in order to account for the now distinct species.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am
Medals: 4
Standard Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Frigidus on Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:24 am

/ wrote:
13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.” 22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.


Studies show that for the size of Noah's ark; for the mathematics of the vessel and the weight of the animals with supplies to sustain them would, by the laws of physic, only be possible if "kind" refers to a representative of Genus or Family, rather than species.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was- ... imals.html


Divergent species within the same genus can often interbreed, but the resulting animal is typically sterile; such as is the case between lions and tigers. Given this information, the animals on Noah's ark would logically need to be a common ancestor before this divergence, ergo some evolution must have taken place afterwards in order to account for the now distinct species.


Yup. Actually, if we were to accept the premises that the flood actually occurred as spelled out in the Bible and that Earth is only a few thousand years old, the rate of evolution necessary to explain how we have such great diversity of life derived from whatever was crammed into roughly 40,000 cubic meters is exponentially faster than anything evolutionary scientists have ever suggested possible.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (1)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby tzor on Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:34 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
Scientist need to first answer the question of life before they can proceed to show how Evolution is real and not by creating any Hoaxes. As it stand, every piece of evidence purported by science to prove evolution is either a Hoax or a grave misunderstanding of the facts.

Nope, this is EXACTLY backwards. A story begins in the beginning. Science, however, starts with what is known and then goes from there.


I would like to add to this point. Viceroy63, do you believe in chemistry? Do you believe, for example in the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen to form water?

Then let's go to the "beginning" as it were. Past the molecules, the atoms, and even protons and electrons.

Do you know that the "Standard" model flat out ignores gravity and the Super Symmetric Standard model has to be simplified just to speculate about it?

Science starts from a scale (space and time) that it can measure and works from there; backwards, forwards, large scale and small scale.

We don't need to know how super symmetric particles propagate gravity to know that hydrogen and oxygen create a fire and the heat rises against the flow of gravity.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class tzor
Media Volunteer
Media Volunteer
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Medals: 8
Standard Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby jonesthecurl on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:10 pm

Incidentally it seems very likely that one of the main hoaxers in the Piltdown man story was Tielad de Chardin, the famous Christian philosopher.
And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse
Medals: 19
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3)

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:30 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:Incidentally it seems very likely that one of the main hoaxers in the Piltdown man story was Tielad de Chardin, the famous Christian philosopher.


I never claimed that "Christian" are angels or saints, That's the Catholic Christians who make suck claim of men. In fact I agree with the fact, No, the Truth, That so called "Christians" especially mainstream Christians such as Catholics are truly down and dirty lower lifeforms that need to evolve. But that is besides the point.

the point is not who made up the theory of evolution Hoaxes, but simply that they exist and are just a Hoax spun on an unsuspecting majority of ignorant folks who are easily swayed into a fabricated lie. The reason for the lie is the research dollars and an entire industry of Book publishing and even entertainment that has been constructed around this lie for the purpose of filling the proverbial "Pockets" with literal Dollars "Americano."

That is really what this whole thread is all about.

Nobody does "nothin fo" Nothing.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DoomYoshi, GoranZ, Quirk

Login