Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[AV1611VET]

What a waste of resources, lol.

I don't consider legislatures using our tax dollars to combat runaway science as "a waste of resources."

Does the name Frances Kelsey ring a bell?

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's a bit rich! You post a dialogue without any hint of the source and then you have the temerity to attack a fellow member when they confess to being confused. Some up front honesty from you in providing source and relevant context could have avoided that. I am disappointed, but sadly not surprised.

Now to the meat of the matter. Anecdotes are great to relate over a beer with friends; they can add a bit of colour to an otherwise drab discussion; however, they are not especially effective at providing convincing evidence to challenge a position arrived at by extensive and diverse research. If you had not an anecdote, but a rigorously constructed poll that showed a significant proportion of the relevant scientific community echoed the sentiments expressed in your anecdote, then it would be worth sitting up and taking notice. Without that you just have an anecdote.

You have not addressed the issue. Which part of "Sam's" statements are factually incorrect?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Tour is not a molecular biologist. He is a synthetic organic chemist specializing in molecular machines. They are not the same thing. The "scientist" quoted in that article is not James Tour, so he is irrelevant.

Do you believe that it is impossible for a scientist to be ignorant of every discipline but his own specialisation? I do not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you believe that it is impossible for a scientist to be ignorant of every discipline but his own specialisation? I do not.

Your identification of Tour's specialty was incorrect. I corrected it. He is irrelevant to this discussion. And that "reporters" story is blatantly phony.

 

[Ophiolite]

You have not addressed the issue. Which part of "Sam's" statements are factually incorrect?

I shall be happy to do so once you have apologised for your gross discourtesy to @sfs and acknowledged that your posting of a sizeable chunk of text without properly citing it is boderline plagiarism.

But having identified any inaccuracies in the text, the text will remain irrelvant, since isolated anecdotal claims, proffered without a single instance of supporting evidence are of no significant value in a discussion of science. I understand that this cherry picked opinion must be very comforting to you, providing apparent support for your beliefs, but ultimately it is as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1 Corinthians 13:1)

 

[Astrid]

Do you believe that it is impossible for a scientist to be ignorant of every discipline but his own specialisation? I do not.

If, IF ToE were false, the disproof
would be everywhere and it would
not be a topic except maybe for fringe
phonies, if even that.

 

[sfs]

Do you believe that it is impossible for a scientist to be ignorant of every discipline but his own specialisation? I do not.

What does that have to do with your claim that Tour was a leader in the field? He's not a leader in the field of the molecular basis of disease.

 

[Astrid]

What does that have to do with your claim that Tour was a leader in the field? He's not a leader in the field of the molecular basis of disease.

The few scientists who don't accept
ToE are  always brilliant and / or leaders in
their field.

Didn't you know?

 

[Astrid]

Tour is not a molecular biologist. He is a synthetic organic chemist specializing in molecular machines. They are not the same thing. The "scientist" quoted in that article is not James Tour, so he is irrelevant.

I bet $1.79 USD that neither point will be conceded.

 

[Apple Sky]

Darwinism is a false narrative, this can be clearly seen by reading Genesis 6.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwinism is a false narrative, this can be clearly seen by reading Genesis 6.

Except God's own creation says otherwise...

 

[AV1611VET]

Except God's own creation says otherwise...

Now you sound like Lamberth.

Are you in communication with God's own creation?

If so, is it telling you the Bible is wrong?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now you sound like Lamberth.

Are you in communication with God's own creation?

If so, is it telling you the Bible is wrong?

Question in response: If God did create the world, why would He make it one way and yet allow a book to be written that says He did an entirely different way to the world He has us inhabit?

Right is a matter of morality, not scientific fact.

 

[Apple Sky]

Question in response: If God did create the world, why would He make it one way and yet allow a book to be written that says He did an entirely different way to the world He has us inhabit?

God didn't allow the creation of the Nephilim, this is what the deluge was for, to rid the earth of them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God didn't allow the creation of the Nephilim, this is what the deluge was for, to rid the earth of them.

Fun fact: there was no such thing as the Nephilim.

So I'll ask the same question again: If God did create the world, why would He make it one way and yet allow a book to be written that says He did an entirely different way to the world He has us inhabit?

 

[sfs]

God didn't allow the creation of the Nephilim, this is what the deluge was for, to rid the earth of them.

Which means that the Flood failed since the Nephilim are still around afterwards (Numbers 13:33).

 

[BCP1928]

You have not addressed the issue. Which part of "Sam's" statements are factually incorrect?

He uses two terms he does not define: "information" and "design." Without those definitions, his statements are impossible to analyze, since both terms have a variety of meanings depending on the context. In particular, as used in scientific discourse, "information" is a mathematical concept. Without a specific mathematical definition his assertions are vacuous.

 

[dlamberth]

Darwinism is a false narrative, this can be clearly seen by reading Genesis 6.

What the Earth itSelf as Created by God with His own hands is showing us paints a very different picture than does the ancient creation story of a nomadic tribe of desert nomads.

 

[dlamberth]

Are you in communication with God's own creation?

If so, is it telling you the Bible is wrong?

Yes.

 

[dlamberth]

God didn't allow the creation of the Nephilim, this is what the deluge was for, to rid the earth of them.

This sounds to me very much like a Greek/Roman Pagan type of God sitting high up in a cloud somewhere dishing out punishment.