10 Scientific Facts Evolution is Wrong

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Judging by your posts, I don't doubt, you are able to achieve some altered state of mind.

Some people are more capable of this than others and it is similar to some people being able to be hypnotized while others can not. There is a neuroscientist in Canada, who has supposedly created out of body experiences in people, by connecting them to a head cover that gives out magnetic impulses. Low and behold, these people experience things, that align with their own personal beliefs and life experiences.

It has taken a lot of practice and willful intent. Like all skills, it wanes if I don't use it. The first time I happened, it took me 1.5 hours of lying completely still and reigning my mind in to be fully present. Then the rushing of winds and sound and "pop*, I was out.


As for your last comment, water pouring into empty cups still takes on the shape of the cup.

 

[bhsmte]

It has taken a lot of practice and willful intent. Like all skills, it wanes if I don't use it. The first time I happened, it took me 1.5 hours of lying completely still and reigning my mind in to be fully present. Then the rushing of winds and sound and "pop*, I was out.


As for your last comment, water pouring into empty cups still takes on the shape of the cup.

Let's take that shape of the cup and call it a deep psychological need. In that circumstance, your mind will work, to shape your perceptions, to correlate with the psychological need.

 

[BobRyan]

This is all, of course, completely wrong.

And I must ask you, if this in any way was correct. Dont you think that thise who work with biology professionaly would have noticed?

So then you are saying that if blind faith evolutionism really were shot full of holes we should see something like a hint of it from our dear athest evolutionist friends who of course - always tell the truth.

Well then - how about this?

=======================================
[FONT=&quot]Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at [/FONT]the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 [FONT=&quot] - said:[/FONT]

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians
"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

 

[Ophiolite]

Philosophy? Seriously? Philosophy has nothing, nada, zilch to contribute to modern physics. Nothing at all. Philosphy is a bunch of men sitting in a chair and "thinking" about stuff. You don't answer scientific questions about the nature of the universe by "thinking about it".

Philosophy is a worthless subject when talking about the natural sciences.

I was with you all the way - and after - until you got to the above piece of, let me be polite, nonsense.

First, consider that until recently physics was known as Natural Philosophy.

Logic, a central tool, arguably the central tool of science is a product of philosophy.

The current most generally accepted notion of how science works is the product of a philosopher. (Any competing theories I know of are also the product of philosophers.)

At the frontiers of science we need to consider how we know things: that's epistemology, a branch of philosophy.

Some philosophers have given philosophy a bad name, but the bath water you just through out had a family of quintuplets in it.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Let's take that shape of the cup and call it a deep psychological need. In that circumstance, your mind will work, to shape your perceptions, to correlate with the psychological need.

Yes. Which is why when I reach that state, I go outside, sit cross legged on the ground and announce to the universe, "I have no agenda, I am ready to learn." Things happen that I never imagined, nor intended.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes. Which is why when I reach that state, I go outside, sit cross legged on the ground and announce to the universe, "I have no agenda, I am ready to learn." Things happen that I never imagined, nor intended.

Cool. That just wipes away any psychological need you may have.

Looks like you have it covered.

 

[Delphiki]

So then you are saying that if blind faith evolutionism really were shot full of holes we should see something like a hint of it from our dear athest evolutionist friends who of course - always tell the truth.

Well then - how about this?

=======================================
[FONT=&quot]Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at [/FONT]the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 [FONT=&quot] - said:[/FONT]

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians
"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Quote mining now?

You just have lie after lie after lie, dontchya?



Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.
I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,
[signed]
Colin Patterson

 

[Loudmouth]

So then you are saying that if blind faith evolutionism really were shot full of holes we should see something like a hint of it from our dear athest evolutionist friends who of course - always tell the truth.

Yet another creationist who uses "faith" as a term of derision. They want to scare people away from science so badly that they will fall on their own swords to do it.

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians
"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Hey, I can use quote mines, too.

Even theists say that there really isn't a God. Even the Bible says it.

"There is no God." Psalms 14:1

 

[DogmaHunter]

I get into that state by a distinct series of volitional steps. If I do not complete them, I do not reach the state. I have repeated this over and over, even scientifically tested it by having my GF at the time put photos on the top of the dresser and I would pop out and report the details. I got most of details each time.

Like I said, the appearance of the physical become malleable in that state. I can manipulate it or ask it to respond. I have learned and experienced the most when I ask it to respond.

Go tell it to James Randi.

 

[CabVet]

Here are ten scientific facts that evolution is wrong:

1. Birds prove natural selection is naturally wrong.

2. Species without a link.

3. Missing inferior evolutionary branches.

4. Single cell complexity.

5. Human egg and sperm.

6. DNA error checking.

7. Chaos from organization.

8. Chromosome count.

9. Origin of matter and stars.

10. Peanut butter.

For an in depth explanation of the first nine, QV: SOURCE.

Glad to see that the same lies keep being posted here. Do creationists lack creativity to come up with new lies?

 

[DogmaHunter]

First, consider that until recently physics was known as Natural Philosophy.

Yes. Recently. Exactly.

Logic is based on empirical experience and observation. Before Einstein and the empirical evidence of relativity, it wasn't "logical" that time wasn't constant everywhere, at all times. Before quantum mechanics, it wasn't "logical" that something could be measured in 2 places simultanously. Before Darwin, it wasn't "logical" that natural processes could produce the variations of life that we observe.

No philosopher would have ever come up with the uncertainty principle.

I didn't say philosophy as a whole was worthless. I was talking about physics and the natural sciences. I just don't see how a philosopher is going to contribute to these empirical fields as they exist today.

 

[Kylie]

Irregardless of what my idea of Heaven is, this still stands:

Aim for earth, get earth; aim for Heaven, get both.

First of all, this requires Heaven to be real. If heaven is NOT real and you aim for it, you;re just firing blind and you'll be lucky to get anything.

Secondly, this also requires a system in which you can have both. If Heaven is something where once you get in you are cut off from Earth completely, then if you aim for Heaven and get there, you don't also get Earth, do you?

Finally, irregardless isn't a word.

 

[Kylie]

Living for God isn't losing out on this life.

I'd miss every sunday morning of this life, wouldn't I? At least.

And possibly even a tenth of my pay (which isn't that much to begin with...)

 

[Kylie]

Glad to see that the same lies keep being posted here. Do creationists lack creativity to come up with new lies?

I think they stick with these because they are under the impression these claims are intelligently designed.

 

[AV1611VET]

First of all, this requires Heaven to be real. If heaven is NOT real and you aim for it, you;re just firing blind and you'll be lucky to get anything.

Secondly, this also requires a system in which you can have both. If Heaven is something where once you get in you are cut off from Earth completely, then if you aim for Heaven and get there, you don't also get Earth, do you?

Finally, irregardless isn't a word.

Frankly, I don't see you enough around here, and when you are "active," you post only about once a day.

So I'm really not going to argue this with you.

But for the sake of the lurkers, I quoted a saying.

If that saying isn't good enough, then improve it.

As the saying goes:

Don't curse the dark, light a candle.

 

[CabVet]

More like 10 lies being repeated over and over again because they support your point.

 

[justlookinla]

I'd miss every sunday morning of this life, wouldn't I? At least.

And possibly even a tenth of my pay (which isn't that much to begin with...)

No, you'd still be alive on Sunday morning.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is all, of course, completely wrong.

And I must ask you, if this in any way was correct. Dont you think that thise who work with biology professionaly would have noticed?

There is no licensing for biologists. Anyone can be one and no remedial coursework is required. What "B's" do?

Bail Bonds - (Dept of Licensing)
Barbers/Barber Shops - (Dept of Licensing)
Beauty Salons - (Dept of Licensing)
Bed and Breakfast Facilities - (Dept of Health)
Births - (Dept of Health)
Blind Schools - (Dept of Health)
Boats - (Dept of Licensing)
Body Art Artists - (Dept of Licensing)
Body Piercing Artists - (Dept of Licensing)
Bonds (Bail) - (Dept of Licensing)
Boxers (Professional) - (Dept of Licensing)
Brokers (Insurance) - (Ofc of the Insurance Commissioner)
Brokers (Real Estate) - (Dept of Licensing)
Bulk Commercial Fertilizer Distributors - (Dept of Agriculture)
Bus Drivers - (Dept of Licensing)
Business Licensing Service - (Dept of Revenue)

 

[Queller]

There is no licensing for biologists. Anyone can be one and no remedial coursework is required. What "B's" do?

Bail Bonds - (Dept of Licensing)
Barbers/Barber Shops - (Dept of Licensing)
Beauty Salons - (Dept of Licensing)
Bed and Breakfast Facilities - (Dept of Health)
Births - (Dept of Health)
Blind Schools - (Dept of Health)
Boats - (Dept of Licensing)
Body Art Artists - (Dept of Licensing)
Body Piercing Artists - (Dept of Licensing)
Bonds (Bail) - (Dept of Licensing)
Boxers (Professional) - (Dept of Licensing)
Brokers (Insurance) - (Ofc of the Insurance Commissioner)
Brokers (Real Estate) - (Dept of Licensing)
Bulk Commercial Fertilizer Distributors - (Dept of Agriculture)
Bus Drivers - (Dept of Licensing)
Business Licensing Service - (Dept of Revenue)

This is quite possibly the 2nd dumbest claim I have ever seen. The "licensing" for biologists is called a PhD. Ever heard of that?

ETA reflection of the fact that you claimed (seemingly sincerely) that science cannot study the past.

 

[Dizredux]

This is quite possibly the dumbest claim I have ever seen. The "licensing" for biologists is called a PhD. Ever heard of that?

Actually his assertion that science cannot study past events probably outranks this.

Dizredux