Evoloution is Just Bad Science

[Novaknight1]

That is wonderfully, just fabulous. I find it fascinating, also, how you've taught about evolutionary flaws for over 20 years and can't spell it right. Or, perhaps, we're all just spelling it wrong. I'm assuming, of course, that all studies pertaining to genetics, biology, astronomy, mathematics, cosmology, geology, chemistry, geochemistry, oceanography, archeology, astrophysics, anatomy, taxonomy, phylogeny etc. are all bad sciences as well? I mean, come on... seriously, what is with all those scientists... the male uterus OBVIOUSLY has a function and is by no means vestigial. Homogenous structures? Yea right, bad science. Chimpanzees' genetic material is 99.4% the same as ours? Pish posh... that's bad science, they're monkeys and besides, they look different than us. Stupid scientists... every one of them millions of scientists are just bad scientists, they've been studying this **** for 100 years and they still just don't know what they are talking about.

And contrary to what some believe, evolution does NOT equal atheism... unless of course, a theistic-evolutionist is the result of some sick oxymoron that makes no sense what so ever.

And since evolution is nothing but bad science... let's see 100% proof that creation is the way to go without using "bad science" like evolutionists use. It's gotta be scientific proof, and you can't use the Bible or any of God's words.

First off, Evolution is NOT science.

http://www.lifeandpeace.com/life/darwin.htm

I have MANY web sites with evidence against Evolution. Just let me know, and I'll send you some.

As to why we believe Creation, isn't it a little bit odd that chance can produce a planet with life? People expect many other planets with life, making it even MORE difficult to imagine chance. I am having trouble believing the chance formation of even ONE planet supporting life, but many? Also, people who expect to find other life forms aren't considering the many factors needed to sustain life. So there are no other life forms by chance and there are probably no other life forms by design. Are there any more possibilities? If not, how would everyone looking for life forms like a hug to comfort them?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I am new to this forum, but from what I have seen, all of the arguments regarding evoloution are old and tired and frankly, Not even good science.

The latest scientific information regarding DNA, verses Evoloutionary theory, is that under the constraints of Evoloution, DNA, being Digital Code, invalidates all Evoloutionary theory. Since DNA is Coded information about how matter is to be constructed, it is impossible that DNA could occur naturally. All Good Scientists know that Digital Code comes from an intelligent source, not by random selection. Anyway, I have taught this subjest for 20 + years and have over 1,000 hours of lectures on the subject. I look forward to any intelligent interaction with well informed challengers, if you dare!

I look forward to any intelligent interaction with well informed challengers

perhaps we could actually get somewhere with this thread if you--->

DNA, being Digital Code, invalidates all Evoloutionary theory.

present a defense of this idea.

and for my part i am looking forward to learning something rather than engaging in PRATT's, as has been the case for several weeks here.

....

 

[Event Horizon]

First off, Evolution is NOT science.

http://www.lifeandpeace.com/life/darwin.htm

Great... you bring up a link that say "down with science" when you open it, followed by misconceptions about evolution such as saying it's equal to atheism and saying that evolution says we came from monkeys. Nice job Nova, this is why you are on so many ignore lists.
Nova, why don't you tell us why evolution isn't science?

I have MANY web sites with evidence against Evolution. Just let me know, and I'll send you some.

Nova, you nor your websites have yet to learn what evolution even is.

As to why we believe Creation, isn't it a little bit odd that chance can produce a planet with life?

Chance?

People expect many other planets with life, making it even MORE difficult to imagine chance.

Again, chance? You aren't familiar with biochemistry either, are you?

I am having trouble believing the chance formation of even ONE planet supporting life, but many?

Nova, take some high school courses.

Also, people who expect to find other life forms aren't considering the many factors needed to sustain life. So there are no other life forms by chance and there are probably no other life forms by design. Are there any more possibilities? If not, how would everyone looking for life forms like a hug to comfort them?

Thanks for another probability PRATT, Nova. Very helpful...

 

[Hydra009]

First off, Evolution is NOT science.
http://www.lifeandpeace.com/life/darwin.htm

I have MANY web sites with evidence against Evolution. Just let me know, and I'll send you some.

As to why we believe Creation, isn't it a little bit odd that chance can produce a planet with life?

Isn't it odd that chance can produce puddles which fit the holes that contain them?

People expect many other planets with life, making it even MORE difficult to imagine chance.

Actually, life elsewhere in the universe would mean a greater likelyhood of life arising. If Earth contained all the life in the entire universe, then it that would mean that the likelyhood of life arising would be quite unlikely.

I am having trouble believing the chance formation of even ONE planet supporting life, but many?

Arguments from incredulity aren't valid arguments. I'm having a hard time picturing how bullet trains work. But my ignorance doesn't make them stop working.

Also, people who expect to find other life forms aren't considering the many factors needed to sustain life.

What's the laudry list? at least one sun + rocky planet + organic compounds. Seems to me that somewhere in the literally astronomical number of planets, there is at least one planet with similar conditions. Also, bear in mind the possibility of life arising in slightly different or even very different conditions as those found on Earth.

So there are no other life forms by chance and there are probably no other life forms by design. Are there any more possibilities?

False dichotomy. It's conceivable that there are any number (anywhere from two gazillion to one to zero) other planets with life. Your distinction between "designed" and "chance" life is arbitrary and unfounded.

If not, how would everyone looking for life forms like a hug to comfort them?

Hug the SETI people. They need it. "Terrestrial radio again! Arrgggh!!!"

After hugging them, play the alien pulse from Contact on their speakers. (the pulse music is here - http://contact-themovie.warnerbros.com/) It'll either: 1) give them all heart attacks or 2) be a hilarious joke!

 

[Valkhorn]

As to why we believe Creation, isn't it a little bit odd that chance can produce a planet with life? People expect many other planets with life, making it even MORE difficult to imagine chance. I am having trouble believing the chance formation of even ONE planet supporting life, but many? Also, people who expect to find other life forms aren't considering the many factors needed to sustain life. So there are no other life forms by chance and there are probably no other life forms by design. Are there any more possibilities? If not, how would everyone looking for life forms like a hug to comfort them?

Typical creationist attitude of "We already know the answer before we've even looked for it, so why learn anything new"

I don't know if you realize it or not but we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of space exploration. We haven't even fully explored all the planets and moons of our own solar system, much less those of other stars.

Yet, you're happy to hand-wave the whole idea of exterterrestrial life away just because you religiously feel it's not possible.

People religiously felt that the Earth was the center of the universe for a long time, and even tried to quiet Copernicus for disagreeing with them, all because they chose to do exactly the same thing you are doing. They chose to stop looking for evidence, and to stop thinking for themselves because their religion had mistakenly lead them to believe they already had all the answers.

Now I hope you see the danger in creationism. If you think you already have explainations to everything, where is there any room to learn and to realize you are wrong? All advances in science and technology are based upon finding out faults and improving on them. Science does that too. If there was ONE SINGLE FLAW with evolution, it would be uncovered and dealt with almost immediately.

I don't see how you could think there was some sort of conspiracy out there where you actually think scientists just make things up as they go along. They don't.

How many times has creationism ever been revised as a theory? How many times has it ever changed when it was shown to be wrong about anything? How does it predict anything? How does it really explain anything?

IT DOESN'T.

Now please, nova, stay on the topic at hand and stop trying to force your silly convictions down other people's throats. It just doesn't work that way, and also the more you try to do that the more we're just going to find problems with what you have to say.

Now with 'pastorob's post. I'd love to see his rebuttal to all of what we have said. However, it seems to me he's done a drive by posting.

How typical

 

[corvus_corax]

I am new to this forum, but from what I have seen, all of the arguments regarding evoloution are old and tired and frankly, Not even good science.

Still waiting for your version of 'good science'

Anyway, I have taught this subjest for 20 + years and have over 1,000 hours of lectures on the subject. I look forward to any intelligent interaction with well informed challengers, if you dare!

No, you've been challenged.
Still waiting for any (ANY) rebutal from you.

 

[Ryal Kane]

How many times has creationism ever been revised as a theory? How many times has it ever changed when it was shown to be wrong about anything?

They changed so well with heliocentrism and spherical earth that they now deny they ever believed it in the first place.

 

[corvus_corax]

They changed so well with heliocentrism and spherical earth that they now deny they ever believed it in the first place.

They also changed so well once that variation and adaptation was physically demonstrated that they now deny they ever believed it in the first place.

 

[aeroz19]

I am new to this forum, but from what I have seen, all of the arguments regarding evoloution are old and tired and frankly, Not even good science.

The latest scientific information regarding DNA, verses Evoloutionary theory, is that under the constraints of Evoloution, DNA, being Digital Code, invalidates all Evoloutionary theory. Since DNA is Coded information about how matter is to be constructed, it is impossible that DNA could occur naturally. All Good Scientists know that Digital Code comes from an intelligent source, not by random selection. Anyway, I have taught this subjest for 20 + years and have over 1,000 hours of lectures on the subject. I look forward to any intelligent interaction with well informed challengers, if you dare!

You misspelled evolution.

Hint: If you don't know how to spell it, why should we think you'd know much else about it?

 

[Dennis Moore]

I hope pastorrob does return to this thread. Right now his only vocal defender is Novaknight ... not a good way to come onto the forums!!

 

[aeroz19]

What are your qualifications? Have you been teaching at a respected university? Have you published any scientific papers? Written any books?

This reminds me of what a YECist x-friend of mine once said: "I know that only Baptists have it right. Everyone else is just wrong. I know because I have 13 years of Bible theology under my belt."

But really she knew little other than the indoctrination she had received for 13 years. I tried to tell her, but she didn't understand.

 

[aeroz19]

With all due respect pastor, stick to spiritual matters and leave science to the professionals.

Actually I disagree. Spiritual leaders need to face the reality of the issue. Him coming here might be the first step...maybe...

After all, it was because of people like him (referring to my fundie YECist x-pastor) that I am in the predicament that I am in now. Having faced reality, I now have to reorganize my theology and faith, and am having a not so easy time of it. The crisis period is over, however.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

I hope he is prepareing a comeback or something, I got all interested and he just dissapears. What a tease.

 

[Hydra009]

I hope he is prepareing a comeback or something, I got all interested and he just dissapears. What a tease.

Yeah. Behind the claimed authority and boasted debating prowess lies...


...absolutely nothing.

 

[rjw]

Evoloution is Just Bad Science


I am new to this forum, but from what I have seen, all of the arguments regarding evoloution are old and tired and frankly, Not even good science.

The latest scientific information regarding DNA, verses Evoloutionary theory, is that under the constraints of Evoloution, DNA, being Digital Code, invalidates all Evoloutionary theory. Since DNA is Coded information about how matter is to be constructed, it is impossible that DNA could occur naturally. All Good Scientists know that Digital Code comes from an intelligent source, not by random selection. Anyway, I have taught this subjest for 20 + years and have over 1,000 hours of lectures on the subject. I look forward to any intelligent interaction with well informed challengers, if you dare!

Welcome to the Forum!

In what sense is “DNA digital code” and how does that invalidate “all Evoloutionary theory”?

Given that DNA appears to come from DNA, what makes you say that “DNA could not occur naturally”.

Assuming that the original DNA was created supernaturally, how does this make evolution “bad science”?

What evidence can you bring to bear for your theory on how the original DNA was formed/created?


Regards, Roland

 

[aca_rev55]

Look up the Miller-Urey Experiment, dude... it's proven that DNA could arise naturally. It's widely accepted by scientists of different fields, that the early atmosphere was far too heated for oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and other elements to exist alone, like they do now. These elements combined to form methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water vapor (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (formula), hydrogen molecules (H2), etc. etc. Obviously there was no oxygen to form the ozone (O3) layer, so there was no protection from the sun's ultra-violet rays. Aside from this extreme radiation, there were also intense and extremely violent electric storms.

Alexander Oparin in 1923(?) formed the hypothesis that the extreme circumstances caused the different molecules to react and create different organic compounds. This hypothesis was brushed off by scientists and soon forgotten. Go figure, was kind of a long shot anyway. But in the 1950's somewhere, not sure exactly, A college professor (Urey) and one of his students (Miller) decided to test this out. And they did. Just look up the experiment, it was pretty cool. They created amino acids (building blocks for life!) out of the elements believed to have composed the earth's early atmosphere that I listed above somewhere. Most fascinating.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

First off, Evolution is NOT science.

http://www.lifeandpeace.com/life/darwin.htm

I have MANY web sites with evidence against Evolution. Just let me know, and I'll send you some.

As to why we believe Creation, isn't it a little bit odd that chance can produce a planet with life? People expect many other planets with life, making it even MORE difficult to imagine chance. I am having trouble believing the chance formation of even ONE planet supporting life, but many? Also, people who expect to find other life forms aren't considering the many factors needed to sustain life. So there are no other life forms by chance and there are probably no other life forms by design. Are there any more possibilities? If not, how would everyone looking for life forms like a hug to comfort them?

from your linked-to creationist website
In a single protein molecule, there are 124 enzymes
wow. discredits the whole page.
(he means amino acids not enzymes)

as a matter of courtesy i posted this to the sites guest book as well.....

 

[aca_rev55]

from your linked-to creationist website
In a single protein molecule, there are 124 enzymes
wow. discredits the whole page.
(he means amino acids not enzymes)

as a matter of courtesy i posted this to the sites guest book as well.....

lol! That rocks my socks off. I could never find all of the anti-evolution sites that don't know a whip crack about what they're talking about.

Also, very courteous of you

 

[Gracchus]

I am new to this forum, but from what I have seen, all of the arguments regarding evoloution (sic) are old and tired and frankly, Not (sic) even good science.

Please explain why the arguments are not good science.

The latest scientific information regarding DNA, verses Evoloutionary (sic) theory, is that under the constraints of Evoloution (sic), DNA, being Digital Code, invalidates all Evoloutionary (sic) theory.

Citation? Please!

Since DNA is Coded information about how matter is to be constructed, it is impossible that DNA could occur naturally.

Why?

All Good Scientists know that Digital Code comes from an intelligent source, not by random selection.

I am not sure what you mean by "Digital Code", and why you felt it necessary to capitalize the phrase. And just who are the "Good Scientists", and why are they capitalized?

Anyway, I have taught this subjest (sic) for 20 + years and have over 1,000 hours of lectures on the subject.

Where did you teach? For that matter, where did you learn? What books did you read?

I suspect your alleged credentials would not bear scrutiny. It is very difficult to pull off a pretense of intellect and scholarship when you cannot even be bothered to check your spelling.

I look forward to any intelligent interaction with well informed challengers, if you dare!

It takes two for "intelligent interaction", o self-styled shepherd, and you seem to have abandoned the field.

 

[corvus_corax]

I suspect your alleged credentials would not bear scrutiny. It is very difficult to pull off a pretense of intellect and scholarship when you cannot even be bothered to check your spelling.

I have a pHd in evoloution and eskatolgikal theology.
I am WAY geniuser than you. I got a 194.37 IQ
BRING IT ON BABY!

/humor

Its not only "very difficult to pull off a pretense of intellect and scholarship when you cannot even be bothered to check your spelling", but its also extremely easy to spout non-existent credentials.
This thread has gone and is going nowhere fast.
Pastorbob has not the cajones to back up his childish challenge (Im wondering if he's even checked back)