Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Gained tenure at Whitworth college.
(career army)
"He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford University, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. He was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France."
Tenured at Lehigh University
Professor at Yale
It seems your statement that people's salaries depend on believing evolution is false. On the flip side, we know that many fundamentalist schools do require signing statements of belief - a contradiction of academic freedom. It is the creationists who know their salaries depend on denial of evolution.
Evolution is mathematically impossible.
A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth. If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence. So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution. When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.Since you make this proclamation with such confidence, I am truly perplexed as to why you were incapable of supporting it with clear, understandable, valid mathematics.
Perhaps we should conclude that this, like most creationist claims, is just made up nonsense?
I would like to know the names of some of those great scientists. I was always under the impression that the mathematics of stochastic processes was on pretty firm ground. If great scientists have found fault with it, give us a link or two. I don't expect you to defend the assertion yourself, since fully understanding the mathematics of evolution is pretty hard for anyone without at least undergraduate schooling n the subject.A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth. If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence. So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution. When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.
I will ignore your fallacious appeal to authority, but I have never seen a legitimate attempt at this kind of thing. I have seen claims that one has done such calculations, but the calculations are never presented for some reason.A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth.
If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence.
I have not seen you present an actual bit of evidence for anything - you repeat creationist tropes, this is true.So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution.
Great conclusion.When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.
Evolution (the change in genetic composition of populations over time) is observed fact, both in the lab and in the wild. The Theory of Evolution is, as its name suggests, a scientific theory - it's the best explanation for our observations of the diversity of life, well tested, making fruitful predictions, and supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. Nevertheless, it is open to revision, extension, and falsification; the latest revision under consideration being called the 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis'.A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth. If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence. So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution. When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.
A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth. If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence. So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution. When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.
If I said I had mathematics that indicated when I drop a ball at sea level it will go up away from the earth. But then when I let go of a ball at sea level if goes toward the earth what would you conclude about the math I had? Direct observation and testing contradicts my math so it would have to be wrong.A pointless exercise. Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth.
Right - asking a creationist to support an assertion is pointless.A pointless exercise.
What makes them the greatest?Some of the greatest scientists have already demonstrated that truth.
And so you have decided not to present your amazing evidence.If I thought that evolutionists would address the issues instead of ridiculing anyone who dares to disagree, I'd post the evidence.
I have seen to actual problems, just assertions premised on the rantings of professional disinformation spreaders.So far I have had few address the actual problems of evolution.
And when I read creationist posts, they all come from a preconceived notion that bible creation is demonstrably fact and that evolution is false.When I look at new finds in fossil evidence, I read such "scientific" statements as "likely", "possibly", "it seems" all from a preconceived notion that evolution is demonstrably fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?