Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Mountainmike]

So disprove the ToE and get your Nobel, if youre
such a ”scientist”.

Standard issue yec boilerplate -making things up,
not even knowing what is or is not part of ToE, sprinkling in
news of the obvious to sound authoritative, and presenting
( pretending) to know more than any actual actual researcher
on earth, even pretending to be a scientist, is all common
as dirt.

Only clueless are impressed.

So you will want to avoid doing any of that.

Talking about how ToE “ can’t account for” something
as if “ hasnt yet” means some fatal “ can’t”, or,
cannot account for something irrelevant is also an obvious
yec “tell” so be sure to avoid those in the future application
for credibility before the Nobel people.u


It won’t impress educated people, not even if delivered with
full measure of bombast, and bold font.


Certainly not the Nobel committee.

A fact contrary tovToE would.

So be sure to have at least one datum point.

There is no single ToE
so ” it “ cant account for anything.
So what is your personal ToE? Give me YOUR hypothesis and the experiment you say proved it, without Which there is no theory ( in science, Although I assume your scientism differs)

You have no datum, only your atheist faith.

indeed in science Nobel laureate evolutinary biologist ( specialist subject nucleic acids) Szostak says origin of consciousness ( and universe) are too hard to solve, then in the same article demonstrates he has no idea about pre DNa life either. Just guesses at RNA.
So no ToE accounts for life! Or are you willing to disagree with a nbel laureate too? Does your wishful thinking go that far? If a Nobel laureate evolutinary biologist doesn’t know , how do you?

I prefer science in which ethics and consciousness are two serious problems, which is why serious scientists discuss them. Not you of course.
i get the fact that illinformed believers in scientism and atheism like you care nothing for real science, but please. this is a science forum so please stick to science Here.

 

[Astrid]

There is no single ToE
so ” it “ cant account for anything.
So what is your personal ToE? Give me YOUR hypothesis and the experiment you say proved it, without Which there is no theory ( in science, Although I assume your scientism differs)

You have no datum, only your atheist faith.

indeed in science Nobel laureate evolutinary biologist ( specialist subject nucleic acids) Szostak says origin of consciousness ( and universe) are too hard to solve, then in the same article demonstrates he has no idea about pre DNa life either. Just guesses at RNA.
So no ToE accounts for life! Or are you willing to disagree with a nbel laureate too? Does your wishful thinking go that far? If a Nobel laureate evolutinary biologist doesn’t know , how do you?

I prefer science in which ethics and consciousness are two serious problems, which is why serious scientists discuss them. Not you of course.
i get the fact that illinformed believers in scientism and atheism like you care nothing for real science, but please. this is a science forum so please stick to science Here.

The bit about ”prove” a hypothesis is yet another
dead giveaway tell.

Do to avoid using those, it makes a “ scientist”
claim as transparent as
one of those Nigerian oil minister scams.

 

[BCP1928]

There is no single ToE
so ” it “ cant account for anything.
So what is your personal ToE? Give me YOUR hypothesis and the experiment you say proved it, without Which there is no theory ( in science, Although I assume your scientism differs)

You have no datum, only your atheist faith.

indeed in science Nobel laureate evolutinary biologist ( specialist subject nucleic acids) Szostak says origin of consciousness ( and universe) are too hard to solve, then in the same article demonstrates he has no idea about pre DNa life either. Just guesses at RNA.
So no ToE accounts for life!

The theory of biological evolution (the one theory we are discussing here) doesn't account for "life." It isn't intended to. It is intended to account for the origin of species.

Or are you willing to disagree with a nbel laureate too? Does your wishful thinking go that far? If a Nobel laureate evolutinary biologist doesn’t know , how do you?

I prefer science in which ethics and consciousness are two serious problems, which is why serious scientists discuss them. Not you of course.
i get the fact that illinformed believers in scientism and atheism like you care nothing for real science, but please. this is a science forum so please stick to science Here.

Many serious scientists discuss them--including evolutionary biologists, even though they understand that the theory of evolution cannot fully account for either.

 

[Astrid]

The theory of biological evolution (the one theory we are discussing here) doesn't account for "life." It isn't intended to. It is intended to account for the origin of species.

Many serious scientists discuss them--including evolutionary biologists, even though they understand that the theory of evolution cannot fully account for either.

Being as noted news of the obvious and well
known but leaving out mention of the
”And so….?”

 

[Astrid]

The theory of biological evolution (the one theory we are discussing here) doesn't account for "life." It isn't intended to. It is intended to account for the origin of species.

Many serious scientists discuss them--including evolutionary biologists, even though they understand that the theory of evolution cannot fully account for either.

Do you know of any law, theory, or data set that fully accounts for anything?

 

[BCP1928]

Do you know of any law, theory, or data set that fully accounts for anything?

Mountainmike thinks his religion does, certainly.

 

[Astrid]

Mountainmike thinks his religion does, certainly.

Being the which of why this has no place in a
physical science forum.
Maybe a creation v evolution thread.

 

[David Lamb]

Being the which of why this has no place in a
physical science forum.
Maybe a creation v evolution thread.

But this forum (sub-forum?) has the title "Creation & Evolution".

 

[Astrid]

But this forum (sub-forum?) has the title "Creation & Evolution".

So I see; I was wrong.

Any chance you will ever get around to
admitting some of your errors such as
Ive taken pains to point out?

 

[David Lamb]

So I see; I was wrong.

Any chance you will ever get around to
admitting some of your errors such as
Ive taken pains to point out?

Thanks. I assure you that when I have made a mistake (not when my beliefs and another poster's are not the same on a certain point) I do indeed accept it.

 

[Astrid]

Thanks. I assure you that when I have made a mistake (not when my beliefs and another poster's are not the same on a certain point) I do indeed accept it.

That’s pretty much what I see from, say, a yec who insists the
Grand Canyon was carved by Noah’s flood, and cannot be wrong because
its a matter of faith to them.

 

[David Lamb]

That’s pretty much what I see from, say, a yec who insists the
Grand Canyon was carved by Noah’s flood, and cannot be wrong because
its a matter of faith to them.

I am sorry, but I don't understand how that connects with my post, in which I said, in answer to your question about whether I would ever admit my errors, that I do indeed do so.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm trying to figure out how ethics have anything do with evolutionary theory.

 

[Astrid]

I am sorry, but I don't understand how that connects with my post, in which I said, in answer to your question about whether I would ever admit my errors, that I do indeed do so.

It’s just a side note, not about you who I
take to be an honourable man.

im fluent enough in English, some ways,
but people frequently tell me they
dont know what I’m talking about. : (

 

[Jerry N.]

“Was Charles Darwin a fraud?” Calling him a fraud is not quite right. Julian Huxley, the Fabian Society, and H.G. Wells turn the theory of evolution into a weapon against Christianity. It exists today in the movement for One World Government. Darwin was mostly just a naturalist and not particularly anti-Christian.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

“Was Charles Darwin a fraud?” Calling him a fraud is not quite right. Julian Huxley, the Fabian Society, and H.G. Wells turn the theory of evolution into a weapon against Christianity. It exists today in the movement for One World Government. Darwin was mostly just a naturalist and not particularly anti-Christian.

Where does H.G. Well come into it?

 

[Jerry N.]

Where does H.G. Well come into it?

For a time, H.G. Wells was in the Fabian Society, but they were not radical enough for him. However, both in and out of the Fabian Society, he saw himself as the propagandist (in the old sense) to the masses, while most of the others were focused on the upper classes and academics. He wrote many short stories, essays, and a few books on how the “scientific man” has been freed from the superstitions of religion by things like the theory of evolution and modern machinery.

I'm glad you stand for Ukraine.

 

[Aaron112]

Is this true, folks?

Biblical Creation Evidence | We know evolution is a lie, no proof period, well guess what not only is the theory of evolution a lie, it's supposed author is also a liar. | Facebook

We know evolution is a lie, no proof period, well guess what not only is the theory of evolution a lie, it's supposed author is also a liar.

www.facebook.com

Relatively or Definitely, but not according to the world of sin that supported lies.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For a time, H.G. Wells was in the Fabian Society, but they were not radical enough for him. However, both in and out of the Fabian Society, he saw himself as the propagandist (in the old sense) to the masses, while most of the others were focused on the upper classes and academics. He wrote many short stories, essays, and a few books on how the “scientific man” has been freed from the superstitions of religion by things like the theory of evolution and modern machinery.

I'm glad you stand for Ukraine.

Okay... and where does the Fabian Society, a British socialist group that came up a full 25 years AFTER Darwin published On The Origin of Species?

 

[Aaron112]

define 'understand'.

1) Something lacking in men.