Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[The Cadet]

well, i have absolutely no education on chemistry

And yet you keep talking.

 

[whois]

You're missing my point. You keep on appealing to these scientists as authorities, but you completely ignore what they actually have to say. We've had this with Gould, with Eldridge, with Koonin, and with Ayala. Every scientist you cite disagrees with you on what their work means. Why is that? How do you keep making this same mistake?

like i've said before, it's absolutely amazing how these scientists don't actually mean it when they say it.
eldredge didn't mean it, ayala didn't mean it, koonin didn't mean it, but they indeed said it.
i've provided the source for ALL of my material so you can take their meaning in context.
for some reason, you just do not want to accept that darwinism isn't "all that".
face the facts the cadet, there is no, as in zero, empirical evidence of evolution.

 

[RickG]

well, i have absolutely no formal education on chemistry, and i suggest that anyone that wishes to learn about catalysts do so by reading.

Reading about chemistry doesn't make one a chemist. Probably the most important aspect of understanding chemical processes is years of actual hands-on experience.

hint, another term for catalyst is substrate.

Substrate is not another term for catalyst. Catalysts are not changed or consumed by the reaction, substrates are.

yes, there are known catalysts, but these were found by "trying it" not by solving an equation.

Again, it is more than obvious that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[whois]

Again, it is more than obvious that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

yes, of course.
the following link shows how most catalysts are found.
they are mostly found by experimentation, not by solving an equation.
mitei.mit.edu/news/how-look-few-good-catalysts

 

[The Cadet]

like i've said before, it's absolutely amazing how these scientists don't actually mean it when they say it.
eldredge didn't mean it, ayala didn't mean it, koonin didn't mean it, but they indeed said it.
i've provided the source for ALL of my material so you can take their meaning in context.

And we've consistently shown how you've misunderstood or bastardized that context. Again, these are scientists with huge bodies of work who unambiguously support evolution by natural selection and universal common ancestry. The fact that you can pick out a few quotes from them showing problems is not surprising; in science, we want problems to solve, because without them, our knowledge cannot increase. But you take those problems and say, "Look look Darwinism is wrong" (whatever "darwinism" is supposed to mean in this context; I honestly have no idea as it's not a term used to describe any part of the modern theory of evolution). To the degree that this is true, it's trivial and nobody disagrees with you. To the degree that it is meaningful, it is completely false.

 

[whois]

But you take those problems and say, "Look look Darwinism is wrong" (whatever "darwinism" is supposed to mean in this context; I honestly have no idea as it's not a term used to describe any part of the modern theory of evolution).

uh, excuse me?
it was the scientists themselves that said it, and i have given the sources where they did.
go find those sources, and read them.

 

[RickG]

yes, of course.
the following link shows how most catalysts are found.
they are mostly found by experimentation, not by solving an equation.
mitei.mit.edu/news/how-look-few-good-catalysts

edit:
BTW, you need to hone your quoting skills.
your previous post 183 has me saying things i didn't, so stop misquoting me.

Quote fixed. You still don't have a clue about what you are describing. Experiments and equations go hand-in-hand. Furthermore, your link does not show how most catalysts are found. It describes the results shown in a paper published in ACS.

 

[whois]

Quote fixed. You still don't have a clue about what you are describing. Experiments and equations go hand-in-hand. Furthermore, your link does not show how most catalysts are found. It describes the results shown in a paper published in ACS.

like i said earlier, anyone that wishes to learn about this stuff, go read it for yourself.
i found a great deal of my knowledge on the subject by reading college and uni level texts on the subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

uh, excuse me?
it was the scientists themselves that said it, and i have given the sources where they did.
go find those sources, and read them.

What you will find is that many of them will say that some minor aspects of Darwin's theory was wrong, just as Newton's Law of Gravity was shown to have minor errors. That does not mean that scientists do not think gravity exists nor do the minor errors in Darwin's theory mean that his theory was wrong. Theories are corrected and tweaked quite often. As long as the main thesis is correct it is still referred to by its original name.

I can quote mine the Bible at about 12 different places and show that it says "There is no God". The fact that I can abuse the Bible in that way does not mean that the Bible actually means that. The fact that you can quote mine scientists does not mean that they denied the theory of evolution. By the way, if everyone cannot easily access the source and make sure that your quotes are in context then your source is not valid. The Bible is easy to check when given chapter and verse. If I quote mine the Bible it is obvious. Your sources are harder to track down. That is a sure indicator of quote mining. As a Christian you should not be doing that since quote mining is a form of lying. If I seriously tried to claim that the Bible says "There is no God" you could rightfully call me a liar since those quotes are clearly taken out of context. You may not realize that what you are doing is spreading lies since you are copying your quotes from another source. Those are lying sources and have been shown to be so time and time again.

If you use such a source you become a dupe for them. You may not realize but you are lying by proxy for them. The writers of those articles do not care that they are lying for Jesus. They don't care if people that use their arguments get accused of lying. They think that since evolution is such a threat to their version of Christianity that it is okay to lie to protect their faith. They are using you as a tool. I am sure that you don't want to be someone else's tool.

 

[bhsmte]

Now that he is free, he is taking on all challengers: Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

Cool, more entertainment to come.

 

[bhsmte]

like i've said before, it's absolutely amazing how these scientists don't actually mean it when they say it.
eldredge didn't mean it, ayala didn't mean it, koonin didn't mean it, but they indeed said it.
i've provided the source for ALL of my material so you can take their meaning in context.
for some reason, you just do not want to accept that darwinism isn't "all that".
face the facts the cadet, there is no, as in zero, empirical evidence of evolution.

Here is your problem; they do mean what they say, but you hang on one sentence, as if that is all they have to say on a subject, because that sentence suits you.

This is the equivalent of being on a jury in a murder trial and the prosecution has objective evidence that the defendant had motive, his finger prints were on the murder weapon, his DNA at the scene and a video of the defendant actually doing the killing, but one witness said they knew the defendant and they didn't think they were capable of killing anyone and you deciding then to throw out all the objective evidence and finding them not guilty.

 

[pat34lee]

You avoided my question. Please try again.

no thanks

 

[bhsmte]

no thanks

I understand, that is a tough question.

 

[pat34lee]

Well, congratulations, your definition of "information" excludes DNA. It also has absolutely nothing to do with "information" in the sense of "information theory", the type of information generally referred to in scientific research.

Wrong. DNA is information as much as any computer program.

 

[pat34lee]

I understand, that is a tough question.

also meaningless

 

[pat34lee]

You seem to have confused information with communication.

No, communication involves exchange of information. You must have both. What good is information if only one person has it?

 

[RickG]

also meaningless

No, it just makes you realize that either evolution happens, or all life forms throughout geologic time just popped into existence at just the right time and place that mimics evolution. Therefore, not toddy frogs, rabbits, or kitty cats or billy goats in Cambrian, Devonian, or Silurian strata.

 

[justlookinla]

No, it just makes you realize that either evolution happens, or all life forms throughout geologic time just popped into existence at just the right time and place that mimics evolution. Therefore, not toddy frogs, rabbits, or kitty cats or billy goats in Cambrian, Devonian, or Silurian strata.

How does the Cambrian mimic evolution?

 

[RickG]

How does the Cambrian mimic evolution?

Well, other than quoting me out of context, if evolution were false we would see fossils of all life forms that have ever existed, in that period instead of only those unique to the Cambrian Period and before.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Cool, more entertainment to come.

Unfortunately, people here talk smack and act like experts; though, none are accepting the challenge, Kent Hovind will smoke them just like he has hundreds of secular scientist; of whom, put a small box around science and turn it into religion.