Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That history has a way of being perverted to serve an agenda, to the extent that the actual circumstances / events are known by almost nobody, but everyone knows the Church was at fault and did everything wrong…
 
rossum said:
Maybe “re-learn” would have been better.
Click to expand...
and yet we are seeing science finding out the universe is non-Copernican as science has claimed for a few hundred years.
 
Last edited:
… and yet we are seeing science finding out the universe is non-Ptolemaic as science claimed for a over a thousand years.

And your point is?

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Think about it.
Click to expand...
What? That science changes as new evidence is discovered? Erm… yes, that is the way science has worked since at least the Enlightenment if not before.

If you have new evidence against evolution then science will look at it. Be warned though that science has already looked at the evidence produced by the Discovery Institute and has rejected it as insufficiently rigorous. A lot of work remains to be done by ID, for example a rigorous definition of what they mean by “information”.

Your example is from cosmology. I am at a loss to see how that impacts biology in general or evolution in particular.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
Your example is from cosmology. I am at a loss to see how that impacts biology in general or evolution in particular.
Click to expand...
You brought it up as I recall.
Click to expand...
Right-on Buffalo, Psalm 14:1
 
Yes @rossum did bring it up. He also challenged someone to tell him why the birds were created before the land animals, seemingly unaware of their uniqueness
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Cruciferi said:
I could breed sunflowers all day for 10,000 generations and still never create a distinct new species. They’re just various combinations of the original group.

There’s a limit to change.
Click to expand...
Correct, The Evolutionists have grasped so desperately at postulations supporting the theory that hoaxes abound. For example, in 1923 Weidenreich explained that although the Piltdown skull was human, the jaw was orangutan whose teeth had been filed to fit. it was only in 1953 that the evolutionary scientific community accepted that they had been wrong, that a hoax had been perpetrated, and that Weidenreich was correct.

Just as Evolution is not scientific, Plitdown was never scientific, and is and was always a lie; and the British Museum is alleged to have been part of the misrepresentation.
 
Around 1968 I was taken to see the latest computer, the size of a small trailer home; it’s computing power was likely miniscule cf today’s laptops.

Gitt wrote of the development of the microfilm by the best scientific developers (by the mid 1990s) being so advanced that a 33mm square had the information capacity to hold a complete Bible, while DNA covering the same area could hold the data of 8million Bibles

Evolutionists will tell you that that info. capacity of DNA was a naturally occuring, accidental evolutionary process from a primeval soup; an unsupported unscientific claim

Christians believe DNA was designed by God, and created by, Jesus, the uncreated light.

W Gitt “In the beginning Was Information” 1997 p192 - 194
 
Uriel1 said:
Evolutionists will tell you that that info. capacity of DNA was a naturally occuring, accidental evolutionary process from a primeval soup; an unsupported unscientific claim

Christians believe DNA was designed by God, and created by, Jesus, the uncreated light.
Click to expand...
The majority of Christians on this forum who are sufficiently informed about evolution and intelligent enough to understand the concept believe that dna was formed by a naturally occuring evolutionary process designed by God.

These plaintive claims that the process denies God are weak and transparent attempts to deflect from the fact that you are a fundamentalist of the most fundamental kind. You hold to stories that the majority of Christians rejected in Sunday School.

But I guess if people were laughing at my beliefs and I didn’t have the courage of my convictions then I would try to muddy the waters as well.
 
press.uchicago.edu

Haeckel’s Embryos

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other...
press.uchicago.edu press.uchicago.edu
 
Uriel1 said:
Haeckel’s drawings - Clearly a prolonged fraud,
Click to expand...
Clearly an error, not a fraud, and not prolonged since the error was realised within a few years. Ludwig Rutimeyer criticised the drawings in 1868.

The only people who are prolonging those drawings are creationists, not scientists.

rossum
 
Atheists - what in the materialistic scientific method guarantees truth?
 
buffalo said:
Haeckel’s Embryos: Images, evolution, and fraud delves into their history
Click to expand...
TheOldColonel said:
Yet, the evidence is quite observable and almost universally accepted…

Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact
Click to expand...
Let’s stick on topic; Haeckel’s Embryos were evolutionists’ attempts to deceive a whole population into thinking there is no God. It was a protracted NON SCIENTIFIC deceit, a fraud fed to four generations after it had been called out to be a fraud. Admit that and then we’ll deal with other lies, one by one
 
Last edited:
The burden of proving your own point is upon you, not the readers of your post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top