Disproving Evolution And Big bang Challenge

[CabVet]

Science doesn't accept evidence that disproves evolution. I would LOVE to visit the back of some museums. There are lots of scientists who have been ridiculed and discredited because they have found evidence of dates being totally wrong, never to work in their field of work again. Why would science do this to people if it's so perfect?

And your evidence for this is? Oh yeah, none.

As I said many times in this forum, if any scientist could disprove evolution and come up with something better he or she would probably get the Nobel prize.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Is it possible that they manipulated the data to support their conclusions and ruined their reputation?

Science is made up of many different individuals. Have they all agreed to silence any opposition to evolution? What other theories are they protecting? Maybe science is a secret society. Maybe they're reptilians.

well it's more like their evidence doesn't support current theories. One lady in particular discovered some spear heads which she dated at over 200,000 years old. To check her findings she had geology experts examine the ground she found them in, oh with human bones too. They said she was correct but warned her not to publish anything. She then had experts at dating objects look at her spear heads and use latest techniques. They were dated to over 200,000 years old. She wrote her paper, it was never allowed to be published and her findings vanished. Oh, she wasn't allowed in scientific meetings either because she was female and this was in the 60's. There are hundreds of such cases from all over the world. So, again, why would science be afraid of the truth? Is it because the peers would be ridiculed and have to find a new job? perhaps they are protecting themselves.

 

[KentuckyAtheist]

well it's more like their evidence doesn't support current theories. One lady in particular discovered some spear heads which she dated at over 200,000 years old. To check her findings she had geology experts examine the ground she found them in, oh with human bones too. They said she was correct but warned her not to publish anything. She then had experts at dating objects look at her spear heads and use latest techniques. They were dated to over 200,000 years old. She wrote her paper, it was never allowed to be published and her findings vanished. Oh, she wasn't allowed in scientific meetings either because she was female and this was in the 60's. There are hundreds of such cases from all over the world. So, again, why would science be afraid of the truth? Is it because the peers would be ridiculed and have to find a new job? perhaps they are protecting themselves.

And of course you can verify that this story actually happened right?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yes. Is this something else you are unaware of?

 

[KentuckyAtheist]

I'd like to see the evidence for this actually occuring. As others have said, as a scientist you hope to find evidence to prove prevailing theories wrong. No one remembers the name of scientists that simply confirm what is already known. But we know Darwin,Newton and Einstein because they broke new grounds.

Provng evolution to be false would pratically guarantee someone a Nobel prize.

 

[nuttypiglet]

On the contrary, you know Darwin, Newton and Einstein because their works were published. You have no idea about the hundreds of scientists who were refused publications with their evidence. Do you really believe peers would allow their theory of evolution to be toppled? and take silly old Darwin with them. Oh did he really think of anything for himself, or did he steal everyone elses ideas?

 

[KentuckyAtheist]

On the contrary, you know Darwin, Newton and Einstein because their works were published. You have no idea about the hundreds of scientists who were refused publications with their evidence. Do you really believe peers would allow their theory of evolution to be toppled? and take silly old Darwin with them. Oh did he really think of anything for himself, or did he steal everyone elses ideas?

We don't know about those others because their papers didn't pass peer review. But since you seem to believe there is a global conspiracy in place to protect one of the most fundamental theories in biology, I doubt you'll believe anything I or others say that point out where you are wrong.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Tell you what, watch this to get just the tip of the iceberg.

UFOTV® Presents - Forbidden Archeology: SUPPRESSED New Evidence of Early Man - FREE Movie - YouTube

 

[KentuckyAtheist]

Before I watched the video, I went to investigate the website it came from. Now I understand why you think science is a conspiracy of giant porportions.

Unfortunately, the ramblings of a conspiracy theory website that also sells occult videos along side stories of UFOs and anti-vaccine rhetoric doesn't lend credence to your position. Using nonsense to support nonsense still leaves you nonsense.

 

[nuttypiglet]

So did you verify the names and dig any deeper?

 

[CabVet]

So did you verify the names and dig any deeper?

Yes, biggest collection of lies I have seen this week so far.

 

[Loudmouth]

On the contrary, you know Darwin, Newton and Einstein because their works were published. You have no idea about the hundreds of scientists who were refused publications with their evidence. Do you really believe peers would allow their theory of evolution to be toppled? and take silly old Darwin with them. Oh did he really think of anything for himself, or did he steal everyone elses ideas?

Darwin overthrew Lamarckian evolution and creationism which were the two dominant theories of the time.

Einstein overthrew Newton's work that had stood for 400 years and was considered unassailable by many.

Perhaps you should brush up on your scientific history before making such laughable proclamations. Even better, why don't you cite the actual research that creationists are doing that they can't get published.

 

[Tomk80]

Darwin overthrew Lamarckian evolution and creationism which were the two dominant theories of the time.

Einstein overthrew Newton's work that had stood for 400 years and was considered unassailable by many.

Perhaps you should brush up on your scientific history before making such laughable proclamations. Even better, why don't you cite the actual research that creationists are doing that they can't get published.

Didn't someone challenge AiG at some point to just put on the web their unpublished research, together with the rejection letters from the peer-reviewed journals? I seem to remember something like that vaguely. In my memory, AiG couldn't produce a single article. But I'm not entirely sure that memory is accurate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Didn't someone challenge AiG at some point to just put on the web their unpublished research, together with the rejection letters from the peer-reviewed journals? I seem to remember something like that vaguely. In my memory, AiG couldn't produce a single article. But I'm not entirely sure that memory is accurate.

I would be stunned if they could produce a single lab notebook with descriptions of experiments and experimental results.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yes, biggest collection of lies I have seen this week so far.

where did you get that information to come to that conclusion?

 

[Loudmouth]

where did you get that information to come to that conclusion?

Perhaps you could take one of the claims from the video and defend it, using citations and references?