Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[stu]

Quote from jem:

This is what Stu called philosophy on this thread because these scientists show Stu to be a crackpot.

http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability ...... No "we" don't.....

blah blah blah

Well at least in my case it's going to take a scientist, whereas in yours, you manage to show yourself to be a crackpot by most every post you make.
How desperate are you with all this? That's the umpteenth time you've posted the same thing for no reason.

One philosopher pontificating about what he says other scientists say, is not science, you crackpot.

 

[stu]

Quote from fhl:

The atheists know deep down that science doesn't prove, nor does it "exclude the alternatives" ........

Of course science excludes the supernatural. There is no evidence whatsoever with which to include it. No alternatives.

 

[pspr]

Quote from stu:

Of course science excludes the supernatural. There is no evidence whatsoever with which to include it. No alternatives.

Not True.

“if you exclude the supernatural from science, then if
the world or some phenomena within it are
supernaturally caused — as most of the world’s people
believe — you won’t be able to reach that truth
scientifically.”

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Super.pdf

 

[Trader666]

STUpid is incapable of understanding anything that is inconsistent with his ignorant, delusional views.

Quote from pspr:

Not True.

“if you exclude the supernatural from science, then if
the world or some phenomena within it are
supernaturally caused — as most of the world’s people
believe — you won’t be able to reach that truth
scientifically.”

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Super.pdf

 

[RickTheMan]

Quote from jem:

Anyone who claims they have the strength to understand that a higher power called God does not exist is as much of a crackpot as any religious person they feel superior too.

Sorry to be rude... I do not really have a problem with what your wrote... but there is a strong chance you are a sock puppet.

Says you, offering nothing but a personal opinion and no objective response to what I said.

 

[RickTheMan]

Oh, yeah, and Jem, if you didn't "mean to be rude", then you wouldn't say or BE what you are considering as "rude". See the double-speak thing there?

 

[stu]

Quote from pspr:

Not True.

“if you exclude the supernatural from science, then if
the world or some phenomena within it are
supernaturally caused — as most of the world’s people
believe — you won’t be able to reach that truth
scientifically.”

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Super.pdf

What an awful argument. A philosophical idea should at least be rational , and also not contain the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

The supernatural excludes itself from science simply because there is nothing scientific in evidence for anything supernatural.

To reach the truth scientifically, the supernatural would need evidence conforming with the principles and methods used in science.
There is non. Zilch. Nada. Never has been.

Were some phenomena supernaturally caused, it's obvious science would, and only science could, be used to be able to reach the truth scientifically.

Does that say Colorado education? They ought to be ashamed .

 

[seneca_roman]

Quote from stu:

What an awful argument. A philosophical idea should at least be rational , and also not contain the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

The supernatural excludes itself from science simply because there is nothing scientific in evidence for anything supernatural.

To reach the truth scientifically, the supernatural would need evidence conforming with the principles and methods used in science.
There is non. Zilch. Nada. Never has been.

Were some phenomena supernaturally caused, it's obvious science would, and only science could, be used to be able to reach the truth scientifically.

Does that say Colorado education? They ought to be ashamed .

You might like Creationist Bingo:

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from seneca_roman:

You might like Creationist Bingo:

Lol.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Evolution basically says we come from asexually reproducing micro-organisms and turned into the sexually reproducing organisms that we are today. So how did evolution PLAN that? Evolution does not have a mind. It cant plan for the future...its just random chance. But by separating male, & females, evolution would HAVE to have planned for those two to get together sometime in the future to reproduce. So how can random chance plan for the future like that?

Answer: It can't. It had to be planned consciously.

So the question is...who/what/where is that consciousness and what do we call it?

Answer: God.

As we have fossil records that show how humans once looked, I'm not going to argue with Mr. Darwin or God. What we have today is the culmination of millions of years of symbiosis, and most of that symbiosis has only been able to be explained today. Suggesting that because we cannot prove everything means there is a flaw in science isn't really the case, there is only a flaw in our rationality.

If you use what some theoretical physicists say is true, then the universe is many trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of billions of years old. Not 14.5-14.8 billion. That may be how it has appeared since that time, but deep time really does explain a lot. And water with microbes impacting the earth's surface leaving water and bacteria behind is how we went from single cell amino acids to homo sapien.

A lot of these ideas are also based on superstition, and in the following link you'll see that not only can you produce "life" in a 1000 degree heated vacuum, but you can also see how experiments with these organisms have shown that the new organisms evolve or adapt.

http://www.youtube.com/user/BWolinsky?feature=mhee#p/c/08EF19FC8C3D9F13/0/cEyqT2_ricA