The people for whom science is not sufficient are the people who are seeking comfort and can't find it there. Science is about understanding rather than about comfort. If the people for whom science is not sufficiently comforting wish to find that comfort which they seek, then they should not at least endeavor to shit upon science. However, some do. And they soil themselves and those around them in the process. "Muddying" the water, so to speak. Perhaps such people should first seek to determine why science in its pure glory is not sufficient. Why they need to feel special over and above most or all others sharing this planet. In so doing, perhaps they will be in a better position to assess what their actual needs are and how they can go about fulfilling them without soiling everything around them in the process. Again, I only refer to those who feel compelled to shit upon science in order to achieve their inner peace.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
its funny how all the fake scientists come here and rip on the guy who doubts evolution....
especially when a real scientist would know that real scientists who win awards understand that it is very very very unlikely that there was enough time for abiogenesis to happen on earth.
In fact that is why the Crick the guy who discovered DNA wrote a peer reviewed paper suggesting pan spermia as a way that life may have first gotten started on earth.
I wonder what drives fake scientists to feel so superior while lacking basic knowledge about their chosen fields of fake expertise ?
For any of you who to show you are capable of intellectual conversation...
I ask that you state a known pathway from non life to life.
Not that I ask you to prove life came from non life... but just that you describe even one known pathway from non life to life.
I you can you will win a nobel prize.... and you can talk about evolution as if you have some sort of authority for your idea that life evolved on its own...
if you do not you should realize how shallow your understanding of science creation and evolution really is.
especially when a real scientist would know that real scientists who win awards understand that it is very very very unlikely that there was enough time for abiogenesis to happen on earth.
In fact that is why the Crick the guy who discovered DNA wrote a peer reviewed paper suggesting pan spermia as a way that life may have first gotten started on earth.
I wonder what drives fake scientists to feel so superior while lacking basic knowledge about their chosen fields of fake expertise ?
For any of you who to show you are capable of intellectual conversation...
I ask that you state a known pathway from non life to life.
Not that I ask you to prove life came from non life... but just that you describe even one known pathway from non life to life.
I you can you will win a nobel prize.... and you can talk about evolution as if you have some sort of authority for your idea that life evolved on its own...
if you do not you should realize how shallow your understanding of science creation and evolution really is.
That comment alone suggests that you never picked up a single modern book on evolution and read it from cover to cover. Not a single one. Enough said. All you have is a set of feeder lines that have been furnished to you by history deniers with an overriding agenda. You're just a pawn. And not a very good one.Quote from jem:
...Not that I ask you to prove life came from non life...
Quote from Free Thinker:
your way leads you down this path.
If âfaithâ is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for âfaithâ in any particular belief...
Quick question, your reply requires more, but... what evidence do you have that the scientific definition of "evidence", which includes a limitation to only that which can be shared, aka verified, ie. five-sense information (our common denominator), what evidence do you have that that definition of evidence is best?
Quote from Gabfly1:
The people for whom science is not sufficient are the people who are seeking comfort and can't find it there. ....
That's why I've been saying this argument will never end. Not so long as we are mortal (and know it). Not that I'm the first to say that, lol, it's why (some of) our grandparents told us to never argue about politics or religion.
Quote from jem:
For any of you who to show you are capable of intellectual conversation...
one common arguement from ignorance that creationists use it the odds argument. the odds of natural creation is some astronomical number that couldnt possibly happen. they dont understand how odds work.
if you are dealing with a lotto that has a billion to one chance of winning does the winning number have to come up at one billion draws? can it come up at one million trys? how about on the tenth try?
I understand. But my point was that such people should try to find a way to achieve their inner comfort without trying to hold other people back in the Bronze Age, for which these particular comfort seekers were ideally suited. They cannot move forward and feel compelled to hold everyone else back. They should step aside and not try to trip up others with their security blanket, and let them move forward unfettered. They should not impose their limitations on others.Quote from Ricter:
That's why I've been saying this argument will never end. Not so long as we are mortal (and know it). Not that I'm the first to say that, lol, it's why (some of) our grandparents told us to never argue about politics or religion.
Precisely. That's why I know that jem never read anything scientifically meaningful on the subject.Quote from Free Thinker:
one common arguement from ignorance that creationists use it the odds argument. the odds of natural creation is some astronomical number that couldnt possibly happen. they dont understand how odds work...
Quote from Free Thinker:
one common arguement from ignorance that creationists use it the odds argument. the odds of natural creation is some astronomical number that couldnt possibly happen. they dont understand how odds work.
if you are dealing with a lotto that has a billion to one chance of winning does the winning number have to come up at one billion draws? can it come up at one million trys? how about on the tenth try?
The thing is natural selection doesn't rely on odds.
You have a population of say 10,000 rabbits. One of those rabbits was lucky enough to have a genetic mutation that makes it run faster. He will obviously be better equipped to outrun their fox predators. He will reproduce and pass on that mutation. The one rabbit that got unlucky with a slow-running gene will be the one that feeds the fox. He will not reproduce and the slow gene will not pass to the next generation.
This is an example. I made the numbers up. Multiply this over millions of generations and billions of organisms that live over a billion years time and you get an insane number of mutations. Evolution happens over millions of years.